- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
What happened to the second world? You never hear about it
The Warsaw Pact was the second world defensive military treaty in cold war terms where it originated. NATO allied countries, Warsaw pact allied countries, and unaffiliated with either.
But word definitions change with usage, and today first and third are more commonly used to identify economic development as a catch all measurement for developed vs undeveloped countries and regions. I don’t think it’s bigoted, but it is a superficial comparison. I think you can learn a lot more about a culture through their art and treatment of prisoners for example, among other measurements.
Countries that didn’t ally with either the Soviets or the US are considered “second world”
This is incorrect. What you’re describing is the Third World. The Second World was the eastern bloc and other Soviet allies. The First World was NATO allies. The implication is basically that the third world was not important enough to be a factor in the cold war.
US and allies were first world, Soviets and allies were the second world, everyone else was third world.
Classist.
There is some merit to the classification, considering people in “2nd/3rd world countries” walk into grocery stores in the US and are so overwhelmed by all the abundant meat and produce and clothes that are freely accessible, that they have to go back outside to collect themselves. It’s not your ethnicity that determines if a country is a 1st/2nd/3rd world country. it’s how far their infrastructure has advanced, and their quality of living. Don’t like it, become a politician or businessman, do your darndest to be successful, and then make it your purpose in life to use your wealth/influence to advance infrastructural development in countries that don’t have the same quality of life as countries like Japan or the US.
Tad hard when 1st world countries keep fucking with your governance and infrastructure and economy
walk into grocery stores in the US and are so overwhelmed by all the abundant meat and produce and clothes that are freely accessible, that they have to go back outside to collect themselves.
This is hilarious
Fun fact: this happened to Boris Yeltsin, who then became the first president of Russia after the fall of the USSR.
Huh, I’ve only encountered the “rich and privileged” definition in the wild, regardless of skin color.
Yes, there are rich and privileged people with any given skin color. Nonetheless are non-white rich and privileged people by far outnumbered by white rich and privileged and non-white rich and privileged are very often less privileged than their white peers.
But that’s just the situation as it is now, it doesn’t make the definition racist.
What I mean to say is that it includes every citizen of a particular 1st world country. The US, for example, has a very wide racial diversity, and every one of them is part of my encountered definition.
Then your definition is dumb. There are a lot of poor people in the US. Just because there are people worse off doesn’t mean your own poors aren’t poor and underprivileged and suffering from it.
Edit: Your description also even furthers my point, because the globally poorest people are non-whites and they are also outnumbering rich and privileged by a large margin.
Are you saying a POC can’t have 1st world problems?
Yes, that is the exact meaning if my words /s
I think you misinterpreted my comments. That’s okay my dude. I was saying POC can also have 1st world problems and aren’t excluded because of their race.
Nonetheless are non-white rich and privileged people by far outnumbered by white rich and privileged and non-white rich and privileged are very often less privileged than their white peers.
Super american-centric take, go off wrong-queen
Bullshit. Western-centric, maybe. But even globally seen are white people generally better off than non-white people. That doesn’t mean that in countries that are not USA, Canada or european countries non-white people cannot be privileged over white people, but globally and statistically, white people have more freedom are wealthier and have better access to any kind of infrastructure.
Technically, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland are all 3rd world nations. At least, according to the original definition.
Edit: this isn’t meant to counter the point made by the comic. I just think it’s interesting.
Does this mean that Trump pulling the US out of NATO would make the US officially a Third World Country?
It certainly would put a novel wrinkle into things.
. . . are all 3rd world nations.
Uh, Sweden and Finland are NATO members (2024 & 2023 respectively) and Ireland has had relations with NATO since the 90s.
They were considered 3rd world by the original definition at the time it was defined.
You know? I didn’t even really consider that, due to the fact that the original definitions pretty much lost their meanings with the fall of the USSR. However, since Putin’s basically working to recreate it now, it seems like those definitions are relevant once again, so yeah - you’re absolutely right.
Yeah, so was second world because of Russia or because of communism? We need to redraw some stuff. Maybe use something other than number ranking for our definitions. I think we’re ultimately too attached to calling countries with brown people third, but this is a fight I can get behind.
Yeah, so was second world because of Russia or because of communism?
Err… yes. It was essentially a capitalist vs communist thing, but really it was more “US-aligned” versus “USSR-aligned”, since the US and USSR were the two big superpowers with guns and nukes pointed at each other. First world meant “the US, and people who like the US”, second world meant “The USSR and the people who like the USSR”, and third world was everybody who wasn’t aligned politically with either major player. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the phrase “second world” pretty much fell entirely out of use. I’m not sure why “first world” and “third world” ended up sticking around in the lexicon, but their meanings morphed to “rich countries” and “poor / developing countries”, respectively.
My guess (and this is pure speculation) is that the terms stuck around because they were related to foreign policy. Because the foreign policy wonks were primed to think of the world in terms of blocs of allies or as spheres of influence from decades of the cold war, it’s probable that they had gotten used to referring to their allies as “other first world nations”, and to the countries they sought to influence as “third world nations”. The Vietnam war, for example, was a proxy war fought against the USSR, where half of Vietnam was second-world-aligned, and the other half was first-world-aligned. Prior to those lines being drawn in the sand, it was a third world country. The same could also be said about Korea. Also, pretty much the entire continent of Africa was an ideological battleground between the US and the USSR, as both vied to woo, coerce, and force individual countries into their respective spheres of influence. Because the terms “first world” and “third world” were so frequently used as a matter of policy, it’s easy to see how the use of those terms could persist even after the original definitions became obsolete.
As for why a numbering scheme was initially employed… it’s unimportant; simply an easy way of distinguishing between teams. If the USSR had originated the concept, chances are they’d have put themselves as first world, with the US & affiliated nations as second world. Or they might have used letter designations instead of numbers. Or color coding. It doesn’t really matter in the end.
I feel like 2 and 3 should be switched, 3rd being allied with the enemy, which should be the worst
It just so happened one and two aligned with economics as well. The US and allies being generally richer than the USSR.
Argentina and North Korea are second world countries
