EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

I think that the “Third World” is in the state it is in currently for the most part because of the Western world. The “First World” thrives by abusing resources in the “Third World”. Western countries secure their interests at the expenditure of the “Third World”.
I find issue with the term “Third World” because it seems demeaning. It implies that these “lesser developed” countries are at a lesser caliber of worldliness than the rest of the human race. The term suggests that the countries are in a “world” of their own and a lesser one at that. They are not first, not second, but third. Who wants to come in third? Nobody.
Other terms such as developing and underdeveloped are all relative. They are developing or underdeveloped compared to Western countries. Because the Western countries dominate most military, diplomatic, and economic markets in the world everything is relative to the “First World”.
I agree with Stavrianos in the fact that the First World could be overdeveloped. As a “First World” country we have created many problems for ourselves such as global warming caused by increased pollution due to industrialization. We are increasing the quality of life for many but in the process are we hurting our future?

I agree with Stavrianos that the First and Third Worlds developed ness are related; like he states later in the chapter, the First World is dependent on the Third World and vice versa. The economic systems that have been set up make it impossible for Third World countries to enter into industrialization to the degree that the current First World countries once entered. The First World countries have so greatly exceeded and passed through industrialization that they are preventing Third World countries to enter it. I also agree with Stavrianos that they the two worlds have developed to equally opposite degrees; the First Worlds have moved forward, and it seems as though the Third Worlds have moved back and the gap is only widening. The relationship between these worlds is one of complete dependence, and it is this dependence that is enforcing the gap and making it impossible for the Third World to move ahead – they rely to heavily on external things; I believe that a little more self-sufficiency would be beneficial in advancing them towards First World status.

Stavrianos really glossed over the evolution of the metropolitan center; I would have liked to hear a little bit more about the dependencies – of course they are probably discussed further in a chapter not given to us.

There is a definitively negative connotation with the term underdeveloped, and I think it is unfair to use, because it is used when comparing countries to the western ideal, and there are different ideals besides that of the western one; so to Americans a certain country may seem underdeveloped, but when viewed from a different culture, this may not be so. Development is a perspective and it is unfair to base the status of a country on one perspective only. By grouping countries together, people forget to look at all the different shades, they only see black and white, which is unfair to individual nations.

I do believe that the relationship between the "Overdeveloped" and the "Underdeveloped" is very much related. I believe the First World countries surpress Third World countries by means of expoltation through cheap labor and many other ways. Cheap labor is the underlaying principle for capitalism. This is what Stavrianos talks about when he says that the locals are the farms or industrial workers. Large companies set up shops in these areas and give them just enough to live but no where near enough to evolve. I do not think their are any countries that are "Overdeveloped", just "Overconfident". Everything is developing every day and will until they no longer exist. I believe the term by which these countries are catagorized is too vague. In many ways these "Underdeveloped" countries are developing faster than the United States, by their own standards. I am sure their certian places in this world that are consider "Underdeveloped" that have been able to access electricy, internet, and phone communication all within a one year time frame. Developing at this pace, it will be a matter of time before their economic situation picks up. When you look at the time frame of which this took the people of the United States, this would be considered as developing very fast. So I believe it depends how "developing" is defined.

I think that the first world and third world (developed and undeveloped) are related. As the article points out, the "overdevelopment" of the first world more or less left the "underdeveloped" third world behind in the sense that trade catered to the rich (article states the early trading of silks and other expensive fabrics). I have to disagree with his comment that the third world is as underdevloped as the first world is overdeloped. We forget that people are different. There "underdevelopment" could simply be the refusal to develop (defined by the first world countries), because, as we have seen in various countries, development is not always good, and can end up in war, violence, problems with class. It seems that the relationship between these two worlds is the first world as a kind of bully and the third world as the little kid. The first world goes around thinking that every third world country wants development. All the third world seem to want is the basic necesities for life while still maintaining there basic daily practices. Lastly, I strongly agree with the author's comment that the first world tends to use the third world (especially countries that lack local resources) for cheap labor.
Stavrionos seems to only skim the surface of cultural differences. For example, in Africa there are still many indigenous peoples (such as the efe tribe). These groups of people/tribes are content with there practices. They don't have running water, but they know how to get water. They make there own weapons and forage for there own food. What Stavrianos misses to point is that these people are modern/developed in there social practices. Technologically, however, they don't feel a need to develop anymore because there own simple technology has worked for hundreds/thousands/a whole lot of years...so why "develop?"
Using the term third world or underdeveloped seems fine, but the social stigma surrounding these terms is false. When one hears third world or underdeveloped it's as if you're saying the country is "third" next to all the other countries that are 2nd or 1st...therefore less important. Underdeveloped carries a similiar connotation. We might as well call these countries handicapped. Unfortunetly these definitions were defined by the first world, what do the so called "underdeveloped" countries call themselves? Probably not "third world" or "underdevloped." The upside to grouping these countries this way is that everyone knows what you're talking about (at least in the first world). The terms work for the first world, but do not for the third.

I agree with Stavrianos when he says that the meaning of "third world" has moved to a economic meaning. For a country to be labeled Third World, they are economically behind. I think that First World countries such as the United States and Japan take advantage of Third World countries. First World countries use the populations of 3rd world countries to obtain cheap labor and cheap products. While developed countries could be helping and assisting the "developing" countries; they instead have self-motivated intents. So what would happen if the developed countries stopped taking advantage of developing countries? For example, if the United States stopped using cheap laborers and only used American workers. Instead of helping the underdeveloped country, this would put them even farther into debt because the US would be taking away a big part of their economy. In order for the developing countries to really "develop", they need to be given the same opportunies and treatment that the First World countries do.

Will Third World countries ever become First World countries?

I believe the first and third world are interconnected with the wealthier west exploiting the labor and resources of impoverished nations. I found the explanation of the system's development to be somewhat confusing and vague. I also found differentiating between imperialism and colonialism to be difficult in this text.
As for the terms overdevelopment and underdevelopment, I believe these terms are too subjective for them to be commonly used. Some may see a society as being overdeveloped with abundant technology and economic growth. Others may see the same society as being underdeveloped if it is not at the forefront of modern development. Indigenous peoples may feel that they have developed perfectly within their environment, while others may seem them as being underdeveloped. These terms are used with the west acting as a basis for comparison. That in and of itself makes the terms useless because of the differences between cultures and regions. This is different from the term "Third World." Although this term used to have a specific political meaninging during the Cold War, it has become a kind of stigmatic stamp on impoverished nations. When "Third World" is used to describe a nation, certain ideas come to mind such as disease, famine, along with other unappealing, and usually false, descriptions.
Although I don't believe this term is accurate or even truly definable, it does help with categorizing areas of the world. I don't necessarily think that is a good thing, but people inherently segregate themselves and that is why I think "Third World" is such a commonly used term. Although it has negative connotations and is grossly inaccurate, it follows the "us versus them" mentality of the west.

As outlined later in the reading, Third World is not based on underdevelopment anymore. Some nations considered Third World nations are prosperous, such as Kuwait, Turkey, Mexico, and North Korea. I do, however, agree that “Third World” is demeaning and gives the idea that countries are altogether inferior to the Second and First World countries. My question: why do we even use these terms anymore? Is it really necessary to identify a country as a First, Second, or Third World country? What significance does it really have besides causing controversy?

I believe the First and Third Worlds are related organically and functionally. First World countries, such as the US, utilize Third World countries’ underdevelopment to their advantage. They take advantage of lower priced merchandise and lower paid workers in the Third World by buying, importing, and reselling products at a much higher price in their own country. (Granted not all Third World countries are poor, but many are.) The average per capita income statistics labeled in the reading make it obvious that this rich-poor gap is increasing and is not a coincidence.

I agree with Stavrianos that the First World and Third World are related "organically and functionally". The status of a country is not determined through it's own efforts to "develop", but rather the inter-personal relationship that exists globally, and unequally, with other countries. It was interesting to read about how the term "Third World" was originally created, and how the definiton has evolved over time. Originally having a political connotation, Stavrianos says that after the 1950's "Third World" came to refer to "the underdeveloped segment of the globe..". I think that he brushes over this topic far too quickly. I understand that the article is short and he wanted to address the more current definiton, but I think that having a deeper knowledge of the events, people, and ideas between the years 1950- present day would be beneficial in creating a more complete picture of "Third World" defined today.

I don't think it makes sense to use the term "Third World". Before reading this article, I viewed "Third World" countries as just poor; I am now just unraveling the complex relationships that exist between countries. Labeling a country as "Third World" would create a false identity for these countries. I don't think that many people know how the term actually originated and how broad of a range of diversities that it covers.

"Second World" countries are hardly talked about today...why?

While reading the text, I found the most interesting sentence of his writing to be that the First World and Third World are not isolated but "organically and functionally interrelated." I found it interesting that we are writing about the topic, which I think greatly influences the importance of the statement. I fully agree with Starvianos that the two so called "worlds" are inter-related. I think the fact that "3rd world" countries depending on "first world" countries, profit, economic, and political standards is what causes the "third world" to be underdeveloped and the other nations to be overdevelpoed. I thought the statement "the capitalist Western societies, extended the range of their economic activities from the local scale to national and then to international," was very important because it is the exact opposite goal and economic status of the underdeveloped countries who cater to local needs. I think it is the idea of how overdeveloped nations ruling/controlling/overpowering the underdeveloped nations, the leads back to the fact that the third and first world are inter-related. The idea of one nation over the other is called imperialism, and "modern imperialism remolded the entire globe and in the process engendered the third world." Stavrianos throughout the entire article talks about the development and relationship between the two world, but I am curious to know if he thinks that all countries in the world fall into the category of third or first world, is it so black and white? I also dont understand when he quotes David Ricardo, when Ricardo says all countries and economies benefit by each other by making the best goods to export and buying the best goods for their country. If this statement is true, than why are their such economic differences if this is supposed to be a "natural" relationship.
I personally dont think it is fair that the words "third world" and underdeveloped are termed together. When I hear underdeveloped I think a country is unable to produce enough to support the people in its country, when in reality most underdeveloped nations are producing numerous forms of exports, that can support the country but are overpowered by the first world countries.

I agree with Stavrianos' belief in the relationship between the First and Third World countries. The new 21st century term "the interdependence of nations" has made these countries even more organically and functionally tied to each other. It is not economically possible for all countries to have First World status because it is inherent to the structure of capitalism that consumers will buy from the cheapest producer. If producers sold their wares for the same price, the capitalist market would cease to exist. The only way to get rid of the Third World and all of its connotations is to end capitalism, which frankly, does not seem to be happening any time soon.

I do agree that first and third world countries are related because it's the comparison of the success of one that another is able to be labeled "inefficient." "Organically" the terms relate because it is meerly a label and they both spawn from each other and are based off the success of the other. Functionally, as I just said, they are related because they are on opposite extremes of a spectrum of "worth". One statistic that I recently heard that bothers me and exemplifies the extent to how much more money first world countries are making in comparison to third world countries is that if California was it's own country it would be the 7th biggest superpower. This is considering it's revenue and power. I think that the gap between first and third world countries is not a good thing.

I feel that I didn't get enough information though about the effets of overdeveloped countries having too much power. I know I believe that it isn't a good thing, but I would have liked to know more to base my decision on.

I think that by labeling a country as either first or third world makes it more difficult for a third would country to make an effort to try to improve the areas that make them "third world." I think calling them developing instead gives them the hope and courage to try to improve. Some countries were mentioned in the article as having potential because of all of their natural resources, they just need to learn how to handle them.

From reading most of the other's posts, I tend to agree with what the majority of them are saying and it seems many would like to see the gap between first and third world countries get smaller.

Like the old adage says..."The rich get richer while the poor get poorer." First World countries owe a lot, if not all, of their progress and stature to the lesser developed "Third World" countries. Take for instance the Berlin Conference and the resulting "Scramble for Africa." As the most powerful economic and political forces in Europe marked their territory across "The Dark Continent", chances for future economic prosperity and perseverance were destroyed within the African countries. Workers were exploited, precious materials were stolen and insulting close-minded attitudes hindered the natural order of events in the resource rich continent.

How does an event like that mutual? As European nations benefitted off the continent, African countries lost a fighting chance. Its the same argument that goes along with Affirmative Action; How is one country supposed to match the levels of prosperity and opportunity of an always benefitted country, when they themselves have hundreds of years of catching up to do? Is Sudan all of a sudden going to make as much money as the United States?

So yes, the term "Third World" is very ethnocentric. Its clearly not about worth or promise, its about how conditions are today, and that is without considering the historical events that got a country that name in the first place. Its not just imports/exports that are keeping some Third World countries down either. How does one overcome rampant disease, civil wars and corrupt political systems among other things and expect to play with "the big boys?" There is far too much catching up to do for the problem to ever truly cease.

In this document, Stavrianos supported his theory that the First World and the Third World are related “organically and functionally.” In Gerard Chaliand’s observation of the Third World, he stated that underdevelopments are the consequences of the integration of the capitalist system incorporated around the world. The only way to end the underdevelopment is by putting an end of the dependency of the First World of the Third World and vice-versa.
In David Ricardo “sounding-perfect” theory of comparative advantage explains that in maximizing the utilities for both the First and Third World countries, each country should concentrate on producing goods that are surplus that in country and buy from other countries that have materials that they need. But delving in this subject matters results in severer consequences than expected. The Third World continues to degrade, while the First World prospers in resources and wealth.
Also another interesting idea from Gunnar Myrdal points that the reason why the world has a strong economical gross is because of the integration and manipulation of the “weak” and “strong.”

The phrases “First World” and the “Third World” are instantaneously made into opposites just like the connotations of good and bad. You can’t have one without the other (both for comparison and in actuality since many First World countries get their raw products or labor, etc. from Third World countries). Furthermore, just by using the word “first” you are implying that there exists something that is not first. In this case the word “third” is used. By using this terminology, separations have been made and forged into the minds of many. Third is never before first no matter which way you look at it and therefore people view whatever is considered “third” as less than “first.” My question is how can we change something like this. How do we unwire the connotations we create when we hear the phrases “First World” and “Third World”?

The First World and Third World are undoubtedly related and many of our classmates find this to be true. As Stavrianos also explains in the introduction of Global Rift, the First and Third Worlds’ are dependent on one another. One cannot exist without the other. However, this does cause me to think about the world between-the Second World. All of our time and energy are spent contemplating the relationship between the First and Third Worlds when maybe it is time to look at the countries that may not fall into either of the two categories. Do such countries even exist? Is there a Second World? This question was also posed by another student, but I wonder the same thing.

I think that the rates aren't as related as Stavrianos makes it out to be. There have been many strides to bridge the gap in many third world countries. There are many large and developed cities in nations that may otherwise be considered third world countries. That is not to say I'm going to completeley ignore the fact that there is still a considerable distance between everyday life in the US and life in sub saharan Africa for example. I think a fine example of this is the AIDS epidemic and how it is handled. In the US, we still have the same problem as third world nation, but we have the knowledge to prevent it and money to combat it with research. In third world nations, much of the information we take for granted is unheard of or against public view. More obviously money is going to be a greater issue.
I think that third world as a classification is interesting in the way it came about after world war two. I also think that it incredibley inaccurate in by grouping many nations together. There are many third world nations that are definetely more so developed then others. I think underdeveloped has a negative connotation as a country with a lost hope, that it can't possibly be developed ever. Developing seems a bit more optimistic that change will occur and the nation will eventually leave the state it is in.

I also agree with Stavrianos that the so called “development” of the First World and “underdevelopment” of the Third World are related. There is a dependent relationship between the two, and the gap seems to be widening. The Third World countries would not exist in their current economic status without the “subordinating control” that is placed upon them by the capitalist countries throughout history. Stavrainos talks about the two distinguishing factors behind Third World status which are the low income level, and the economic growth without economic development. The goods produced in these countries are all sent out to the First World countries and little of what they produce is linked back to their own local economy therefore leading to a high unemployment rate. Their relationship is unequal and it’s growing further apart. I do think that the First World is overdeveloped to the same degree as the Third World is “underdeveloped”. It seems that with the few opportunities people have left to succeed economically in the Third World, many determine that they need to move to the First World in order to succeed. It appears that so many are trying to reach the top, and those who don’t try to enter the corporate world will see a large gap in the “rich” from the “poor” with little middle ground. Unless some major changes take place I only see this gap getting worse.

I think Stavrianos should have addressed some of the connections to the global rift from a political standpoint as well as economical.

To say developing or underdeveloped sounds as if the country is just starting out fresh, like a baby. But in reality the country has become the state that they are in as a result of the rest of the worlds actions. By placing them in this group, they are labeled and aren’t viewed as separate but rather the term “underdeveloped” tags them into that group, where people us this term to define them.

I do agree with Stavrianos on the relationship of the overdeveloped ness of a first world country and the underdeveloped ness of a third world country is most definitely related but it is limited to functionality. Mainly because if a first world country has really fast economic development, then in contrast, third world countries are lacking and that head start can be transformed, through robbing the resources in third world countries for a fraction of their value, into the widening gap that we see today. Stavrianos states, “Underdevelopment is not a primal or original condition” and if there were an organic relation, then that would mean that there is in fact economic development in the third world country.

There is definitely no point in using “third world” as a term because the pool of countries, states etc. is so vast and individual, that a simple definition cannot satisfy all of them. There is obviously the connotation that “third world” does mean backward or just simply, bad and worse, it is one that is widely accepted. Stavrianos says that the name originates from the neutrality of certain countries during the cold war. Maybe this is just me, but especially after reading Stavrianos’ work, it seems we have all grossly misinterpreted the original meaning of “third world.” This is all the more reason to stop using this term.

I do agree with Stavrianos in the point that he makes about the first world and the third world being interrelated. I see that without the goods that the thrid world is providing us(first world) than we wouldn't be so spoiled and distant from everyone else. The first world is really overdeveloped, in my opinion, and has too many not needed luxeries that are being made by the third world nations at a very cheap price. I think that the relationship between the two is like a game of tug of war where one side has experienced players tugging and the opposite are non-expereinced players just there to make the game go on. The third world nations help to make the first world nations stand.
How the term 'Third World' first came to be is very interesting but how it has evolved to become a new term in this day I think also makes some sense. However, I think todays term 'Third World' doesn't seem to quite fit well since it mostly deals with the distancing economy. The first world nations all have great economies and therefore can designate countries according to their economy but lower economy nations probably wouldn't know what an economy is, making it unfair for them since they wouldn't know how to use the terms and how to designate countries under which terms.
'Underdeveloped' seems a little harsh to the ears in my opinion. I don't know if any nation can be marked as underdeveloped since there are nations that have existed for a long time with lots of experienced leaders to lead them and there are also nations that have barely sprouted since the last few decades. The nations that were barely developed I would understand are slowly developing, but when compared to older nations I wouldn't say that they are underdeveloped. I don't think that grouping people into these categories is good and definitely not benefitting.

I do agree that there is a relationship between the “development” of the First World and the “underdevelopment” of the Third World because each has a dependency on the other. This relationship has caused an imbalance in which First World countries become more advanced while leaving the Third World behind. In this way I believe that the overdevelopment of the First World is in same degree as the underdevelopment of the Third World. The more developed countries have taken the reins and industrialized, but with this industrialization the Third World countries have been left behind. The industrialized countries have taken control of the process, and in the current practice it seems difficult for Third World countries to themselves develop as the First World has due to economic relationships that have arisen. The First World is seen as dependent on the resources and labor of Third World countries, while the Third World is dependent on the capital the First World. This relationship makes it very hard for the Third World to take control without the First World making concessions. There is a widening gap between the two, and a good question would be what concessions would the First World need to make to help the Third World industrialize, and what effect these changes would have on both.

I believe the term “Third World” can be used to group different countries economic development; however it is important to understand how accurate it really is. The countries differ in so many respects it can only be used relatively broadly. It seems today that the term “Third World” brings to mind only negative characteristics. It makes it seem that the countries are inferior, which is definitely not the case. This is the downside of grouping many nations in one broad category, because then they all are seen as the same, even they are very different. The grouping should be used to broadly define where a country stands economically today, and should not be associated with inferiority.

I do agree that there is a relationship between the “development” of the First World and the “underdevelopment” of the Third World because each has a dependency on the other. This relationship has caused an imbalance in which First World countries become more advanced while leaving the Third World behind. In this way I believe that the overdevelopment of the First World is in same degree as the underdevelopment of the Third World. The more developed countries have taken the reins and industrialized, but with this industrialization the Third World countries have been left behind. The industrialized countries have taken control of the process, and in the current practice it seems difficult for Third World countries to themselves develop as the First World has due to economic relationships that have arisen. The First World is seen as dependent on the resources and labor of Third World countries, while the Third World is dependent on the capital the First World. This relationship makes it very hard for the Third World to take control without the First World making concessions. There is a widening gap between the two, and a good question would be what concessions would the First World need to make to help the Third World industrialize, and what effect these changes would have on both.

I believe the term “Third World” can be used to group different countries economic development; however it is important to understand how accurate it really is. The countries differ in so many respects it can only be used relatively broadly. It seems today that the term “Third World” brings to mind only negative characteristics. It makes it seem that the countries are inferior, which is definitely not the case. This is the downside of grouping many nations in one broad category, because then they all are seen as the same, even they are very different. The grouping should be used to broadly define where a country stands economically today, and should not be associated with inferiority.

I agreed strongly with the overall message, I disagreed on some fine
> details, for example bottom p35 last full paragraph, I think that the
> author was not including the 'silk road' activity of the High Tang period
> China (7th C. CE) Therein the ecomonic activity between the eastern and
> western spheres of Asia produced the spread of ideas and goods. Buddhism
> being the best example, ther interaction did not produce the effects of
> "western Capitolism" which i agree with the author on, but the system was
> definately capitolist, and poverty did persist in rural areas but the
> cities thrived as Multicultural cosmopolitains. IN this way what it says
> about the "production for local needs" and "little was exported and
> imported" is not accurate in this example. Though this may be of no
> consiquence to the overall argument (which I agree with) and may be just
> me
> getting nit-picky. I do agree that extractive policies of the old have
> become the "indirect" de facto extractive policies of the present, and I
> think of the natural resources of Africa as the best example I can relate
> fo this modern form of extraction.
> I really like the way the author has handled the evolution of the
> term/idea of "third world". Have you ever heard the song by the Police
> 'One
> world, not three' ?
> I was a little confused about the verticle economies and horizontal
> economies p39-40

I just looked at the list of "developing countries according to the US" and that list is huge! I would argue about some of them being on there. It sounds like we all agree generally that the 1st world is responsible mostly for the 3rd world's present condition. But what about paradigms and globalization, and the fact that some places and peoples have different traditional paradigms that may just be different from the west and therefore be a cause of "underdevelopment" from a western view? I would relate the example of American Indian concepts of private ownership and property in contrast to the colonial europeans in the early days of this country. How does this place the conficts into context? (I still don;t think it justifies the history, but it's worth noting) any thoughts?

In light of this reading, I don't think it makes sense to use the term Third World. To use that term or any single particular term would be putting these countries together in one group. It's not fair to say they are all underdeveloped (for example Kuwait that has a per capita income higher than the U.S.) and its's not ok to say that they are developing either. That would make it seem like the countries are in the progress of developing their infrastructure to improve life for their citizens. Depending on the country's leader, this is not necessarily true. When looking at these countries, they can't all be grouped together either by political, social, or economic views because they are all different. On page 40, the author lists all the different types of "Third World" countries that vary by those same categories. The title Third World does not do these countries justice in that they are not accurately portrayed. It's my opinion that they should not all be grouped to gether but on an economic level that takes into account yearly economic growth and quality of life.

I agree with Stavrianos that the "development" of the frist world and the "underdevelopment" of the third world are related. The third world was created because the world didn't want to get take side with neither the capitalist world (first world) nor the socialist world (third world). As stated from the reading, "the Third World can be understood only if it is viewed as a set of unequal relationships...the Third World are economically dependent upon the developed First World." I aslo agree with him that the first world is overdeveloped to the same degree as the third world is underdeveloped. The structures of these worlds was to make profit, free trade and serve "the needs of the wealthy and powerful".

As I was reading, I felt like he could of explain more on some areas of history such as, the Industrial Revolution and Agricultural Revolution.

The term "Third World", "developing", and "underdeveloping" do make sense; however, the connotations of these terms make them complex. The connotation of "Third World" is usually seen as POVERTY and LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT. The connotations of "developing" and "underdeveloping" are based on PROGESS. If one nation is making progess then it makes sense that that nation is "developing". The downsides catergorizing many nations under these terms are very vague and ambiguous. The only benefit of these terms is to the WORLDS that are "developing".

I think it's clear that the world is interconnected to a degree that makes any significant part of the world capable of impacting the rest of the world. Some of these affects are positive and some are negative. Stavrianos is right that there is a growing rift between what is commonly referred to as the first world and third world nations, but what he doesn't address in the first chapter is what the long term affect has been and where will it lead in the next century. What has happen to the life expectancy of the population of these countries? What has happened to the child survival rate in these countries? It would be interesting to see the affects of these changes on the population over the last century or so. Have all the affects been negative?

I think that the term "third world" is as good as any. Although I'm sure that there are other names that would better discribe this group of nations (such as developing), ultimately a single word or small group of words will fall short of a complete description. Perhaps third world is a good choice because its origins have nothing to do with its current meaning. Like calling these nations the blue nations or green nations. An alternative to third world could be the NAN member nations, which would not suggest that they are third behind some other nation (although this would bring it closer to its original meaning). This term does seem to have limited use, since it is so broad that it is not that useful in describing any single nation. But at the same time the term has naturally evolved to exist today.

I wonder if any significant number of citizens of these countries have even heard this term?

I don't believe that "third world" is the right and politically correct way to call “developing” countries. In a way it is demeaning and only makes the “first world”/overdeveloped countries look better and more rich. I think using developed/developing is a good choice since we do have developing and over-developed countries/areas. The only problem with grouping such diverse countries is that each may be more or less “developed” in certain economical, political, or social settings. However, by grouping, the world can see what countries are in need of help in more areas then counties who need help in just one of the areas of importance.

I don't believe that "third world" is the right and politically correct way to call “developing” countries. In a way it is demeaning and only makes the “first world”/overdeveloped countries look better and more rich. I think using developed/developing is a good choice since we do have developing and over-developed countries/areas. The only problem with grouping such diverse countries is that each may be more or less “developed” in certain economical, political, or social settings. However, by grouping, the world can see what countries are in need of help in more areas then counties who need help in just one of the areas of importance.

I don't believe that "third world" is the right and politically correct way to call “developing” countries. In a way it is demeaning and only makes the “first world”/overdeveloped countries look better and more rich. I think using developed/developing is a good choice since we do have developing and over-developed countries/areas. The only problem with grouping such diverse countries is that each may be more or less “developed” in certain economical, political, or social settings. However, by grouping, the world can see what countries are in need of help in more areas then counties who need help in just one of the areas of importance.

I don't believe that "third world" is the right and politically correct way to call “developing” countries. In a way it is demeaning and only makes the “first world”/overdeveloped countries look better and more rich. I think using developed/developing is a good choice since we do have developing and over-developed countries/areas. The only problem with grouping such diverse countries is that each may be more or less “developed” in certain economical, political, or social settings. However, by grouping, the world can see what countries are in need of help in more areas then counties who need help in just one of the areas of importance.

First of all, the term 'third world' as many of us have already pointed out is very misleading. when someone says 'third world countries', the immediate picture that comes to one's mind is that of a country ravaged by poverty with people not having even the basic facilities for survival. to some extend, it is true, but not all third world countries come under this category. as stavrianos pointed out, this term which was developed after the 2nd world war, has lost its meaning. I agree with him on the point that one of the main way to identify a third world country is through its pace of economic progress. most of these so called 'third world' countries have achieved independence only in the later half of the 20th century and so have not had a very long time to establish their economic strength and stability. with the passage of time, i am sure these countries will finally be able to caught up with the rest of the world, if not completely, than at least upto a certain extend. there is no such thing as removing a third world country. they cannot be 'removed' as such but can definitly be developed into a more technologically and economically advanced country with the gradual passage of time. third world countries are not lacking in anything that the first world countries have, except for financial or rather economic resources. colonialism have hurt these countries more than can ever be imagined but as the world enters into the new century,
the economic scenario of the world as a whole will become anything but polarised.

I was thinking in class the other day that the third world seems more like a western definition of its opposite than anything else. Stavrianos talked about how the third world has been defined by economics and by politics but that those conditions are only historical terms of what is ultimately a relationship of subordination. But Stavrianos’ description of this “organically and functionally interrelated” relationship seems to imply that, although the underdeveloped and developed countries depend upon each other, all the power lies in the hands of those of the first world. It seems to me that these terms are used a lot more by the people of the first world. We have this need to create a clear and strong definition and identification for a system that functions completely at odds with how we function, but at the same time enables us. We capitalize on their labor, and I think we feel the need to establish such strong opposite roles in order to make the world believe that we are of dominance in this relationship because we need to be sure that the third world countries are just as dependent on Stavrianos's "organic and functional relationship," as we are. After all, it is OUR system. Maybe we’re afraid that a significant amount of power lies in the functional side of this relationship, but above all I think terms like “third world,” “underdeveloped,” “first world,” etc serve more to keep the “first world” in dominance and to keep the relationship going. One thing I was curious about: Do “Third World” countries refer to themselves as “Third World”?

I don’t think that it’s fair to use the term “Third World.” I think that the term has a negative connotation and automatically gives people a bad imagine of the certain country or countries. By ranking the “worlds,” it gives certain nations a superiority that demeans other nations. I’m sure that when many people think of “Third World” countries, they think of poor places with no electricity, streets filled with filth and starving citizens. In many of the so called “Third World” countries, that’s not the case though. A friend of mine got the Razor phone from India about six months before it came out in the US. India is supposedly a “Third World” country… if it’s a part of the “Third World,” then how did it have this technology before out “First World” country did?

I think that the 'development' of the First World and the 'underdevelopment' of the Third World are definitely related to each other in that today everything is affected by global affairs. With communication and importing/exporting goods made so easily, it is inevitable that each country contributes to each other economically and socially.

I do believe the Western Worlds have advanced so much that their consumption has also affected the Third World countries negatively. I read a statistic in my World Population class that the U.S. consumes a third of the whole world's resources.

Another thing that I believe contributes to the underdevelopment to Third World countries is that the farmers there know that they can make more money if they export their goods to First Worlds, so they deprive their own people that often even work in their own fields just to make more money. Maybe their intentions were not bad but the results have been devastating.

I agree with Stavrianos that both ‘worlds’ are dependent upon each other but that one is prospering from it and the other is getting the bad end of the deal. Without the cheap cost of imported goods from the Third Worlds, the First Worlds would have to make more themselves. It would cost more to make and buy so people would have to watch how much they consume, therefore not being able to consume as much they would have to ‘lower their quality of living’ in the Western World.

I do believe that the "third world" and "first world" are related. They are definatly dependent on one another economicly and in a way socially. In order for the "first world" to be called the "first world" we need the "third world." It's like we need them in order to make the "first world" look good. I don't necessarly think that the "first world" is overdeveloped. Everything that has been developed in the "first world" has mainly only benefited society.

One thing that Stavrianos brushed upon was the government situations in "third world" countries. I personally think that one of the main reasons why these countries are so undeveloped is because their governments are so corrupt. This dates back to when the Eueropeans came to first conqour. Stavrianos briefly stated that the government, powerful, and weathy control all the money within the country. All the profits that the country makes doesn't go to economy as a whole. It only goes to benefit the powerful. If the poor people speak out, they are often punished and even murdered. There are situations that are going on like this to this day. This is one of the reasons why I think these countries are so undeveloped

I think the "Third World" is underdeveloped and that the "First World" is overdeveloped. But that's the way the world works. For one person(country) to be succesfull there needs to be someone else that is at the bottom. It's what makes the world go around. Our country got started on technology first and i really think thats what made a difference. We were able to discover things that would make our living easier, which created job opportunites.

The Third World is a complicated concept with no clear cut definition anymore. Formally being communist nations, the definition have greatly changed almost to 'not the western world' which is over simplified. When the term third world country is mentioned I think of a newly independant nation whose economy thrives mostly on agriculture. I think of a culture that is strong in traditions and is trying to renew those traditions threw its independance. I think of a culture that is different than ours, but my no means less than, which is what 'third world' implies. Of course education, health care, job opportunities and many other things are factored in to the equation when calculating the status of a nation by the UN. I dont think most common people think in those terms though, I think we have come to learn third world as 'different/less than us', probably because of the cold war and the former communist association of the term. Many of these countries have amazing histories and culture, that we sometimes over view because of the third world status. They have a different way of life, this lifestyle suits their personal needs. I think by labeling them as third world we are saying they are less than us, maybe not intentionally but it does sound like they are lower in the ranking system. Almost like a popularity contest. It is human nature to classify, therefore there will always be a top and a bottom, who is where may change but there will always be a list.