I always thought that the term "third world" followed the terms "old world" and "new world." But I've noticed that most examples in print refer to the "first world." Am I missing something? And what, then, is the "second world"?
I've always used the term "second-world" to reference countries that are trying to dig their way out of a potentially third-world crisis situation by employing the methods of capitalism to limited success. I characterize a lot of the travelling I've done as second-world (esp. Korea and Ecuador). There's abundant poverty, plenty of environmental pollution and political corruption (not unlike the first-world, if you ask "Don't-Blame-Me-I-Voted-for-Nader" me)... to me, second-world is only a matter of who employed the methodology first.
My understanding is that the second world referred to the communist nations, particularly the Soviet bloc. In this definition there is no second world any more (somehow China didn't count). Old world/new world refers to the world known to the ancients, where ancients is as defined by the Europeans. This would include Europe, Asia and Africa. The new world would then be the Americas. There is no congruence between the division of the world into old/new and the division into first/third.
Faldage's explanation concurs with my understanding of these, now outdated terms. Came about after WWII did they?
I always chuckled at the thought of a ranking list for countries. The terms merely reflected the countries economic and political standing, by no means the population's contentment. BTW, the start of 'The Meaning of Life' opens in the 'third world' .. Yorkshire!
The 'developing' and 'developed' we have nowadays, just invites the question: Developed into what?! Something better, higher, no, I know .. RICHER. Thank heavens we have our own scale on which we can base our triumphs.
CDB
anticipated egocentric pragmatist and materialist
Ahah! That explains it. Yet another word mystery evaporates in the shining light of the AWAD squad! Thanks!
Any nominations for a fourth world?
BlanchePatch : Any nominations for a fourth world?
--------------------------------------------------
Cyberworld?
wow
Fiberbabe offers: I've always used the term "second-world" to reference countries that are trying to dig their way out of a potentially third-world crisis situation
Interesting potential here for meaning shift due to changing circumstances. The term third world is pretty well entrenched in its meaning. The main portion of the old second world has evaporated and what remains is seemingly converting but we can't very well refer to a first world and a third world without having a second world we have to do something with the term. Have you always used the term this way, Fiberbabe?
Any nominations for a fourth world?
That depends on how your rank them, by economic success or contentment.
Would the animal kingdom be the fourth world due to a lack of civilization or the zeroth world because they're in utter bliss compared to us?
> utter bliss compared to us
If you were a cow in Europe eating offal for lunch and being burned because of it, all thanks to human stupidity, you may think differently.
My understanding is that the second world referred to the communist nations, particularly the Soviet bloc.
Hope I'm not beating a dead horse here, but do you think it's possible that "third world" did originally follow "old" and "new world," but that it was, mmmm, retrofit with "first" and "second world"? I looked them all up in my trusty old American Heritage Dic (1969). "Third world," "old world" and "new world" were there, but "first" and "second" nowhere to be found. I'm not sure where you could find this out -- maybe in a newspaper style book? I've loaned my Chicago Manual out to a German neighbor, though. Aargggh, now I'm obsessed!
> "first" world
I think that went without saying (often refered to as the Western world/countries).
> "second" world
Whenever it 'was' refered to it wasn't spoken of that way, but as 'Communist' or 'Marxist' or or 'Socialist' or 'the other side of the iron curtain' ad nauseam.
I did wonder when these names came about, roughly (my guess being shortly after WWII or alternatively post Berlin Wall when things started to get more hostile).
I had a friend who found some sort of official (economic/sociological?) definitions for these, and it turned out that according to his source, Canada was "technically" a second world country, because it didn't have enough military power (defined as how? by whom?) to be a first world country. (Sorry that I can't quote a source, but I can say that this friend was a reliable information junkie.)
Anyway, I found that strange.
Faldage asks: Have you always used the term this way, Fiberbabe?
Yes, and now that I see some of the other offered definitions, I'm aware that I put this definition together for myself because I had never heard the Communist/Socialist delineation... it still makes sense to me in terms of the degree to which countries that I consider "second world" look to the US for their lead without bothering to learn from the mistakes...
look to the US for their lead without bothering to learn from the mistakes...Coca-cola
and Coke, you mean? Now remind me again, which is bad one?
The bad news = Some mistakes cannot be learned from "second hand".
The good news = Most assimilate "different" lessons from the same mistakes.
...in other news... as JazzO so nicely put for us... the US is "leading" at what?
