Please let me clarify. If a person has never lived in a third world country but they use the term disparagingly as if they know exactly what it’s like, it’s not precise. America’s problems are bad, problems anywhere are problems yes, but to label a country like America with a term like that? It shows a lack of awareness and frankly (but without offense), it’s perceived that people stretch the term to make a snazzy remark.
Out of curiosity who was using the third world country term disparagingly? I couldn’t find anything in the comments or the article? I know people often misunderstand the first world, second world and third world terms I’m just seemingly missing that here?
EDIT: Never mind my comment searching skills weren’t very good. :)
If you’re going to be this pedantic about the use of a term, then you should know that you’re talking about a developing country. And that the usage of the term “third world” at this point is inherently disparaging because it’s deviated from the original meaning to be used in exactly the context you’re complaining about. Because the term “third world country” in its original context has nothing to do with economic status, position in global politics, or large scale national problems it was originally used in context to their position in WW2. It only exists in that connotation as a derogatory term.
I don’t know about derogatory. Language evolves and changes, and at some point the term ‘third world’ entered common usage as being equivalent to ‘developing nations’. I remember being in primary school 30 years ago and the term was used that way, and definitely not in a derogatory sense.
There’s an inherent negative connotation with third world, and that’s why usage is transitioning to developing. If it didn’t have a negative connotation, a softer term wouldn’t be necessary.
Please let me clarify. If a person has never lived in a third world country but they use the term disparagingly as if they know exactly what it’s like, it’s not precise. America’s problems are bad, problems anywhere are problems yes, but to label a country like America with a term like that? It shows a lack of awareness and frankly (but without offense), it’s perceived that people stretch the term to make a snazzy remark.
Out of curiosity who was using the third world country term disparagingly? I couldn’t find anything in the comments or the article? I know people often misunderstand the first world, second world and third world terms I’m just seemingly missing that here?
EDIT: Never mind my comment searching skills weren’t very good. :)
If you’re going to be this pedantic about the use of a term, then you should know that you’re talking about a developing country. And that the usage of the term “third world” at this point is inherently disparaging because it’s deviated from the original meaning to be used in exactly the context you’re complaining about. Because the term “third world country” in its original context has nothing to do with economic status, position in global politics, or large scale national problems it was originally used in context to their position in WW2. It only exists in that connotation as a derogatory term.
I don’t know about derogatory. Language evolves and changes, and at some point the term ‘third world’ entered common usage as being equivalent to ‘developing nations’. I remember being in primary school 30 years ago and the term was used that way, and definitely not in a derogatory sense.
There’s an inherent negative connotation with third world, and that’s why usage is transitioning to developing. If it didn’t have a negative connotation, a softer term wouldn’t be necessary.