while you are correct. 1st vs 3rd world is an old cold war term that reeks of racism. 1st world were the allies to the US. 2nd world was Russian allies. 3rd world was all the nation to poor to be considered worth caring about. Who happened to be mainly in the global south.

So while I totally agree Falklands was not a racist act. 1st and 3rd world really is a term we need to expunge as our history is full of plenty of others acts that were.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Geopolitical terms are not by default racism. Likewise 3rd world was nations not aligned with the US or USSR, not nations too poor to be worth caring about.

Also fuck 'global south', most idiotic term I've ever heard. Imagine pretending that Russia is in the same sphere as other Western countries and that China is a struggling economy compared to Russia? Fuck off with that nonsense, meanwhile one of the worlds most southern countries is considered northern.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago

Yes but the fact is the actions of Europe in the 1700 has left nations we think of as southern poorer then northern nations. And most of those nations were not allies to a cold war side. Because both sides did not consider then stratigically important.

Given the European (my ancestors of course) actions of treating the area as resources to remove. And the clear fact that the wealth of the north has been built upon those resources.

Ignoring them during the cold war may not have intentionally been due to povertly. But the fact they were behind other nations and unable to catchup was. Meaning there was a def link between poverty and them being named 3rd world. Caused by previous european actions.

As for the global south. I dont understand the term myself. But as it is a term certain nations have chosen themselves to represent the issue. I am not arrogant enough to tell them they cannot use the name for themselves. Or that I will call them something else.