| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
jackobeid
USA
17 Posts |
 Posted - 09/12/2005 : 10:08:27 PM
|
| We must rid ourselves of the old system of categorizing nations as first second or third world countries;as this is obsolete and dangerous. I propose we use civilizations instead. And the measure of a civilization is the degree of its individualism |
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2005 : 10:48:30 PM
|
I agree with you that classifying nations is not a truly helpful thing to do. But what you propose is similar. If I understand you correctly, instead of focusing on nations you are suggesting we focus on subnational or supra-national civilizations; a suggestion that sounds intriguing on its face but may carry within a hint of discrimination and perhaps racism.
How do you propose we grade civilizations and to what end? |
 |
|
|
PaxLibano
France
39 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 11:22:27 AM
|
If we apply the world order classification (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc...) to what we saw happen in New Orleans and the neighboring US cities after Hurricane Katrina, one is left to wonder whether that was a part of the 1st or the 3rd world?
What is the definition of 1st, 2nd or 3rd world? Is it the level of industrialization? Is it individual income? Is it education? Is it personal responsibility (how would you measure that)? Can someone explain to me what these classifications mean?
I believe in one humanity, where all members are equal in rights and have equal responsibilities; but that may happen only in the "Republic" of Plato! |
|
|
|
The Whip
42 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 3:55:13 PM
|
Khayy... a good break from the disgusting Lebanese politics.
Thank you for the topic.
I think whether we like it or not, people naturally classify themselves in classes or groups by race, religion, creed, income, social status, work, etc... The states are to a large extent a reflection of their constituents so they too tend to adopt a classification of one nature or the other.
Believing in one humanity is ideal and avoiding classifications will be examplary; but we live in the real world and these are facts of life. We have the rich and the poor, we have the educated and the illetrate, we have the peace advocate and the terrorist and my guess is that we'll have those for ages to come. |
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 4:13:05 PM
|
The use of the terms First, Second, and Third World is a rough, and outdated model of the geopolitical world from the time of the cold war. There is no official definition of the first, second, and the third world. The One World Nations Online Dictionary define these terms as follows:
Four Worlds:
After World War II the world split into two large geopolitical blocs and spheres of influence with contrary views on government and the politically correct society:
1 - The bloc of democratic-industrial countries within the American influence sphere, the "First World".
The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia.
2 - The Eastern bloc of the communist-socialist states, the "Second World".
"Second World" refers to the former communist-socialist, industrial states, (formerly the Eastern bloc, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic) today: Russia, Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland) and some of the Turk States (e.g., Kazakhstan) as well as China.
3 - The remaining three-quarters of the world's population, states not aligned with either bloc were regarded as the "Third World."
"Third World" are all the other countries, today often used to roughly describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The term Third World includes as well capitalist (e.g., Venezuela) and communist (e.g., North Korea) countries as very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries; and of course LEBANON.
4 - The term "Fourth World", coined in the early 1970s by Shuswap Chief George Manuel, refers to widely unknown nations (cultural entities) of indigenous peoples, "First Nations" living within or across national state boundaries.
Origin of the term Third World:
THIRD WORLD, the economically underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America, considered as an entity with common characteristics, such as poverty, high birthrates, and economic dependence on the advanced countries. The French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the expression ("tiers monde" in French) in 1952 by analogy with the "third estate," the commoners of France before and during the French Revolution-as opposed to priests and nobles, comprising the first and second estates respectively. Like the third estate, wrote Sauvy, the third world is nothing, and it "wants to be something." The term therefore implies that the third world is exploited, much as the third estate was exploited, and that, like the third estate its destiny is a revolutionary one. It conveys as well a second idea, also discussed by Sauvy, that of non-alignment, for the third world belongs neither to the industrialized capitalist world nor to the industrialized Communist bloc. The expression third world was used at the 1955 conference of Afro-Asian countries held in Bandung, Indonesia. In 1956 a group of social scientists associated with Sauvy's National Institute of Demographic Studies, in Paris, published a book called Le Tiers-Monde. Three years later, the French economist Francois Perroux launched a new journal, on problems of underdevelopment, with the same title. By the end of the 1950's the term was frequently employed in the French media to refer to the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America. |
|
|
|
jackobeid
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 12:24:44 PM
|
On the contrary,what I propose is entirely different from the working defenition of nation and government .
a civilization is a group of people with similar identity,values,pehaps beliefs etc... germany as a nation is different than france but both belong to the western civilization.
And yes , civiliztions are inherently racist.The Roman empire lasted a thousand years by holding on to their culture and tradition , the Akkadian dynasty barely lasted for 200 years
quote:
Originally posted by Truth Squad
I agree with you that classifying nations is not a truly helpful thing to do. But what you propose is similar. If I understand you correctly, instead of focusing on nations you are suggesting we focus on subnational or supra-national civilizations; a suggestion that sounds intriguing on its face but may carry within a hint of discrimination and perhaps racism.
How do you propose we grade civilizations and to what end?
|
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 5:00:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jackobeid
On the contrary,what I propose is entirely different from the working defenition of nation and government. a civilization is a group of people with similar identity,values,pehaps beliefs etc... germany as a nation is different than france but both belong to the western civilization. And yes , civiliztions are inherently racist.The Roman empire lasted a thousand years by holding on to their culture and tradition , the Akkadian dynasty barely lasted for 200 years
Fine. but let me play devil's advocate here:
The western civilization is what used to be called the first world during the cold war. Now that the walls of Berlin and China have collapsed and that the myth of the "Free Capitalist" has been exposed (through man-made and natural disaster, the constituents of these world appear to be as diverse as the 4 worlds:
Within the "western Civilization" you have large pockets of economically underdeveloped neighborhoods, where poverty, high birthrates, and economic dependence on the government are a trademark. How would you classify those? They surely seem to me like the 3rd world in the West!!!
By contrast you have highly affluent, economically advanced neighborhoods in Saudi and the United Arab Emirates that rival "Western Civilization" in their capital and industry.
How would you reconcile these disparities? |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
philosophy
Forum Locked
