From your link:
"According to the United Nations Statistics Division:
There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas in the United Nations system.[7]"
I do think rankings like the Human Development Index can be useful, which is a 1-5 ranking based on seven criteria like quality of life, life expectancy and income, but calling some countries ‘developed’ as though they’ve hit the end of some process and no further work needs to be done, while other countries must obviously be ‘developing’ towards that standard is just such an incredibly arrogant narrow-minded worldview that really showcases American exceptionalism.
Well, I wouldn’t say that “developed” implies countries aren’t trying to improve themselves further, any more than “rich” people aren’t trying to get richer. You can call it whatever you want but at the end of the day you need to have some terms to describe poor countries where people die of treatable diseases because they lack infrastructure and money, and countries that don’t (as an example). Global South is just a euphemism for the same but a lot less intuitive and accurate.
There isnt a developing country on the planet that isn’t trying to be considered developed.
And I dont think this is a particulary American term. Third-world, sure.
From your link: "According to the United Nations Statistics Division:
I do think rankings like the Human Development Index can be useful, which is a 1-5 ranking based on seven criteria like quality of life, life expectancy and income, but calling some countries ‘developed’ as though they’ve hit the end of some process and no further work needs to be done, while other countries must obviously be ‘developing’ towards that standard is just such an incredibly arrogant narrow-minded worldview that really showcases American exceptionalism.
Well, I wouldn’t say that “developed” implies countries aren’t trying to improve themselves further, any more than “rich” people aren’t trying to get richer. You can call it whatever you want but at the end of the day you need to have some terms to describe poor countries where people die of treatable diseases because they lack infrastructure and money, and countries that don’t (as an example). Global South is just a euphemism for the same but a lot less intuitive and accurate.
There isnt a developing country on the planet that isn’t trying to be considered developed.
And I dont think this is a particulary American term. Third-world, sure.