First world problems
-
Countries that didn't ally with either the Soviets or the US are considered "second world"
-
Nonetheless are non-white rich and privileged people by far outnumbered by white rich and privileged and non-white rich and privileged are very often less privileged than their white peers.
Super american-centric take, go off wrong-queen
-
This is incorrect. What you're describing is the Third World. The Second World was the eastern bloc and other Soviet allies. The First World was NATO allies. The implication is basically that the third world was not important enough to be a factor in the cold war.
-
US and allies were first world, Soviets and allies were the second world, everyone else was third world.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Yes, that is the exact meaning if my words /s
-
Bullshit. Western-centric, maybe. But even globally seen are white people generally better off than non-white people. That doesn't mean that in countries that are not USA, Canada or european countries non-white people cannot be privileged over white people, but globally and statistically, white people have more freedom are wealthier and have better access to any kind of infrastructure.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
There is some merit to the classification, considering people in "2nd/3rd world countries" walk into grocery stores in the US and are so overwhelmed by all the abundant meat and produce and clothes that are freely accessible, that they have to go back outside to collect themselves. It's not your ethnicity that determines if a country is a 1st/2nd/3rd world country is how far their infrastructure has advanced, and their quality of living. Don't like it, become a politicians or businessman, do your earnest to be successful, and then make it your purpose in life to use your wealth/influence to advance infrastructural development in countries that don't have the same quality of life as countries like Japan or the US.
-
It just so happened one and two aligned with economics as well. The US and allies being generally richer than the USSR.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
walk into grocery stores in the US and are so overwhelmed by all the abundant meat and produce and clothes that are freely accessible, that they have to go back outside to collect themselves.
This is hilarious
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Tad hard when 1st world countries keep fucking with your governance and infrastructure and economy
-
Something Burger 🍔replied to [email protected] last edited by
Fun fact: this happened to Boris Yeltsin, who then became the first president of Russia after the fall of the USSR.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
The Warsaw Pact was the second world defensive military treaty in cold war terms where it originated. NATO allied countries, Warsaw pact allied countries, and unaffiliated with either.
But word definitions change with usage, and today it's more commonly used to identify economic development as a catch all measurement for developed vs undeveloped countries and regions. I don't think it's bigoted, but it is a superficial comparison. I think you can learn a lot more about a culture through their art and treatment of prisoners for example, among other measurements.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I think you misinterpreted my comments. That's okay my dude. I was saying POC can also have 1st world problems and aren't excluded because of their race.