once upon the time (and by that i mean "in the 80s") the world's poorest countries were call the Third World. canada was a First World country, and like all of the other popular countries it loved going to the mall, chewing bubble gum, and feeling sorry for the Third World - especially when those foster parents plan commercials interrupted The Fresh Prince of Belair - but mostly we just really liked our nikes. this phrase, however, went out of vogue when someone came along and said, "uh, 'First World?' doesn't that imply that you richie mcrichipants think you're better than everyone else?" to which the wealthy nations said "well, of cour--- i mean no! no, not at all. slip of the tongue. Two-Thirds World, we meant to say. because 66% of the planet is poor... get it?? go team poverty!" this expression was clumsy and, let's be honest, no one likes fractions. so, it didn't last long. in the optimism of the 90s we started to call the poor nations "developing." it seemed hopeful, full of promise, whole countries budding tiny breasts! the wealthy countries were called "developED." we're done growing, thank you very much and frankly if north american boobs get any bigger they will be visible from space. that same guy from the 80s was like "yeah but isn't it a little arrogant to suggest that you're all grown up? sounds like you don't think you have anything left to learn?" and the powerful nations states said "uh huh," and blinked. and the guy suggested that they think of something better at least until they could understand his remark. they had a big meeting and someone suggested "the expendable nations" but no one could spell that and besides, it didn't work well with Tears for Fears lyrics. "hobos" was stricken from the list - it was copyrighted by the Littlest. the group was stymied. it was important to label the poor countries properly; everyone remembered the whole 'Indians' debacle and didn't want to be caught with their maps down again. "what is the real difference between Us and Them?" the chair of the meeting inquired. i suspect it goes without saying that none of Them were invited to the meeting, after all, and since none of Us knew much of anything about Them, this question was a stumper. "wellllll..." someone offered. "they're poor. and we're not." ahhhh, the group sighed. too true, too true.
an acronym was born that day. LMIC. i know what you're thinking. it sounds like a good name for a rapper. but it stands for the new millennium catchphrase Low-to-Middle-Income-Country. (i believe it's known on the radio as honkytonk but never mind). alternately there are High-Income-Countries, which are paradoxically abbreviated as HIC's.
but no one really wants to be a HIC cuz that's honkytonk for sure. and it's too easy to generate the typo HIV, and THAT was gonna cause some serious confusion!
and so a geographical term has emerged for this decade. the North refers to the wealthy, developed nations (sorry australia) and the South refers to... everyone else (sorry everyone else). it seemed more polite not to put so fine a point on the whole "haves and havenots" business (awkwarrrrd) and most people feel like it's a little more egalitarian. directions on a compass aren't right or wrong, they're just relative. just like a family (insert hearts and happy faces)
and so here i study, the north versus the south in a kind of ethicotheoretical civil war. and i will write about these topics using the whole gamut of terminology. i like Two-Thirds World actually for the visual reminder of inequity that it offers. LMIC is almost as to-the-point as it gets. and north & south encapsulate the binariness of it all. but mostly i will use simpler words. rich and poor, perhaps. is that so wrong?
... probably.
hwb
Very witty. Very sharp
ReplyDelete