Why The Term “Third World” is No Longer Relevant
Vijay Prashad’s book, “The Darker Nations a People’s History of the Third World,” is based on rather antiquated phrase: the “Third World.” The term is used to describe countries of less than fortunate circumstances. Some countries that some consider to be apart of this category are Uganda, Ghana, and South Korea. To its credit, the term provides for an easy way to group several countries together in one easily identifiable category. However, the term’s strength is its own weakness: the term lumps together several unrelated countries with the most basic commonality with an obvious Western bias. What constitutes that the Western powers should be the First World and not the Second or Third World? The article that popularized the term the “Third World” is admittedly Western-centric. The names of each “World” had in fact become obsolete and limited each country to a mere label. At best, the Third World denotes geographical location, not as rating of power like it used to define. This is not argument against Prashad’s well-researched historical facts, but rather his context. Prashad wrongfully perpetuates this term and, by doing so, fails to recognize the accomplishments of all of these Third World countries.
The origin of the World terms originated in 1952, after the ending of World War II and around the time the Cold War began. The United States and the Soviet Union were judged as equals during that time, but the media needed to account for the other two billion people were seen by the more economically stable countries of the world as poor, overly fecund, profligate, and worthless (8). Former French resistance fighter turned journalist Albert Sauvy wrote in “L’Observateur” about how the world is divided into the First, Second, and Third Worlds respectively (6). Naturally, his readers all understood the term and knew what category they fit into (7). The First World consisted of The United States and Western Europe, states that embraced capitalism; the Second World was comprised of the USSR, countries that preferred communism, and the Third World accounts for the rest of the World. Prashad explains, “Sauvy used the term Third World in a manner that resonated with how that part of the planet had already begun to act” (10). During this Cold War era, these terms were acceptable and adequate descriptions of various countries.
That being said, things have changed since the 1950s. The First and Second Worlds only account for one third of the world’s population. The Third World has grown into its own entity that operates mostly independently from Western influence. (Many Third World countries were smaller colonies of their larger First or Second World counterparts.) Nigeria, a Third World country, is the 13th largest oil producer in the world and supplies most of the Shell Company’s petroleum reserves (Falola and Genova 196). Saudi Arabia has the largest export and production rankings of oil in the entire world (221). The value of Venezuelan currency inflated 18.6 percent late last year (Ellsworth). These non-First World countries now have certain powers and products that even Western powers such as the United States of America or England emulate. The U.S. does no posses enough oil for its own citizens unless it uses foreign exports and the value of its dollar has gone down drastically. So why is it still apart of the First World?
In 1946 after World War II, England suffered its worst winter and its economy was broken. Similarly, Japan was also in a state needing to be rebuilt. The only difference between these two countries is a label: England is apart of the First World and Japan is apart of the Third World solely due to geographical differences. In the age of the internet and even well-labeled maps, the world no longer needs a label to explain geographical differences.
Many of those who complain about the term’s homogenization for the distinct histories of different regions are on point. The conservative economist Lord Peter T. Bauer rejected the term Third World in his 1981 book of essays because he felt that it treated the world as a “uniform and stagnant mass devoid of distinctive character” and that it denied “those individuals and societies which comprise the Third World of their identity, character, personality and responsibility” (Prashad 12). By 1981, the Western powers and the Soviet Union had long let go of their colonies. Prashad, however, retorts that Bauer entirely misconstrues Sauvy’s term and that it is “an act of artifice for a global social movement that had only a short history behind it” (13). Prashad however forgets to take time period into account. The world in which Prashad has written this book is no longer a world where yellow journalism is prevalent, nor does the Soviet Union still exist, and the Cold War has ended. Prashad’s main point, like his hero Sauvy, is completely antiquated.
Ultimately, the term “Third World” has not stood the test of time. Prashad says, “The Third World project (the ideology and institutions) enabled the powerless to hold a dialogue with the powerful, and try to hold them accountable. Today, there is no such vehicle for local dreams” (xviii). This is true in the sense that it gave attention to the Darker Nations that did not have a voice. Now, these nations—a though they generally face civil war and poverty daily—still have a voice of independence and make their own decisions (albeit poorly). Perhaps Prashad needs to cease his search for a “vehicle for local dreams” and further contemplate his philosophy on the Darker Nations.
Works Cited
Ellsworth, Brian. "REFILE-Venezuela Cuts Three Zeros Off Bolivar Currency." Reuters 1 Jan. 2008. 20 Jan. 2008 .
Falola, Toyin, and Ann Genova. The Politics of the Global Oil Industry. Westport: Praiger, 2005. 196-222.
Prashad, Vijay. The Darker Nations a People's History of the Third World. New York: The New P, 2007. xvii-15.
No comments:
Post a Comment