I think the term "core" is more apt. The numbered worlds thing is more about relationships to colonialism and the international conflict of the 20th century.
First world is the capitalist imperialists, second world is the first wave of revolution coming out of the first and the third world is the rest/vast majority of the world that carried out revolution and liberation struggles during the cold war.
I was just bringing this up because I think the equating of development/wealth with the "worlds" and not analyzing their history as a division between socio-economic systems is kinda buying into Modernization theory. The third world will become more prosperous and harmonious than the first world ever was.
As historian Christopher J. Lee has written, it was the Konferensi Asia-Afrika, held in Bandung in April, that really solidified the idea of the Third World. A remarkable gathering brought the peoples of the colonized world into a movement, one that was opposed to European imperialism and independent from the power of the US and the Soviet Union.
Some of these countries had managed to break free of imperial rule in the nineteenth century; some earned their independence when fascist forces retreated at the end of World War II; some attempted to do so in 1945, only to be re-invaded by First World armies; and for many others, the war had changed little, and they were still unfree. All of them inherited economies that were far, far poorer than those in the First World. Centuries of slavery and brutal exploitation had left them to fend for themselves, and decide how they would try to forge a path to independence and prosperity.
The simple version of the next part of this story is that newly independent countries in the Third World had to fight off imperial counterattacks, and then choose if they would follow the capitalist model favored by the United States and Western Europe or attempt to build socialism and follow in the footsteps of the Soviet Union, hopefully moving from poverty to a position of global importance just as quickly as the Russians had. But it was more complicated than that. In 1945, it was still possible to believe they could be friendly with both Washington and Moscow.
Can't let people think China is the new First World or we might question our ability to bomb it back into the stone age.
I think the term "core" is more apt. The numbered worlds thing is more about relationships to colonialism and the international conflict of the 20th century.
First world is the capitalist imperialists, second world is the first wave of revolution coming out of the first and the third world is the rest/vast majority of the world that carried out revolution and liberation struggles during the cold war.
But I understand what you mean lol
Ok, fine. Perhaps "Middle Country"? Or, 中国 , as it were?
Lmao yes
I was just bringing this up because I think the equating of development/wealth with the "worlds" and not analyzing their history as a division between socio-economic systems is kinda buying into Modernization theory. The third world will become more prosperous and harmonious than the first world ever was.
deleted by creator
That's an interesting take.