Third World In Whose Eyes?

[OlRedEyes]

Of course, you can always argue with those amateurs at the UN can't you?

Strange that people tend to expect the UN to be a world govt. It's an assembly of very diverse govt's trying to at least find SOME common ground sometimes. And it does that, sometimes. Enough anyhow to at least reduce some conflict and suffering, sometimes. Cannot really expect anything more, till it becomes a world govt.?

[taxexile]

It's an assembly of very .......

........ canny gravy train jockeys and free lunch freeloaders.

[jezchesters]

OK ladies - the point that I was trying to make is that their systems and criteria for measuring statistics seem to be fairly universally accepted - ie when one considers not only GDP, but also indicators such as infant mortailty, adult literacy, universal healthcare etc, Thailand by no means rates as a 'Third World Country'

[Thaddeus]

I went to the local library today, I was returning some books that the wife had borrowed.

They would not accept them back as some of the dots still needed to be joined up and the colouring-in wasn't finished.

My wife has a University education, she still can't point out England on a world map (she can't even point out Thailand) if she needs to work out 19% of any number she reaches for the calculator... and when she suffered a bite from a black dog recently her first port of call was the temple and not the hospital........ she got straight 'A's on every single subject.

My wife lives in Isaan, as do I now ..... Bangkok isn't Thailand, most of Thailand is well outside it, so I can only give m opinion based on my viewing on the majority of the country.

Thailand is third world currently .... a developing nation? .... maybe..... but it's taking far too long, the towns are growing, the cities are growing, but while the doctrine of 'Thailand is great, we did it first and will always do it better' exists, improvement is very unlikely.

[zzdocxx]

For the OP, a clarification of the terms used. Sorry I haven't had the time yet to read the entire thread, perhaps someone has already posted something like this.

From Wikipedia:

The terms First World, Second World, Fourth World, and "Third World" can be used to divide the nations of Earth into three broad categories. "Third World" is a term first coined in 1952 by French demographer Alfred Sauvy on the model of Sieyès's declaration concerning the Third Estate during the French Revolution: "...because at the end this ignored, exploited, scorned Third World like the Third Estate, wants to become something too." The Third World later became a synonym for those nations that aligned themselves with neither the West nor with the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War. Thus, the Non-Aligned Movement was created after the 1955 Bandung Conference.

Today, however, the term is synonymous with countries in the developing world, independent of their political status. However, there is no objective definition of Third World or "Third World country" and the use of the term remains common. The term Third World is also disliked as it may imply the false notion that those countries are not a part of the global economic system. Although it is also criticized as being out-of-date, colonialist, othering, and inaccurate, its use continues unabated.[1] Political theorist Hannah Arendt contends that, indeed, "The Third World is not a reality but an ideology."

In general, Third World countries are not as industrialized or technologically advanced as OECD countries, and therefore in academia, the current term in use is "developing nation". Terms such as Global South, developing countries, less economically developed countries (LEDC), least developed countries and the Majority World have become more popular in circles where the term "third world" is regarded to have derogatory or out-of-date connotations. Development workers also call them the two-thirds world (because two-thirds of the world is underdeveloped) and The South. Some theorists, such as Andre Gunder Frank and Walter Rodney have used the term underdevelopment or underdeveloped world, to indicate the active process by which the global South has been locked out of development by imperialism and the post-colonial policies of the richer nations. Others[citation needed] claim that the underdevelopment of Africa, Asia and Latin America during the Cold War was influenced, or even caused by the Cold War economic, political, and military maneuverings of the most powerful nations of the time. (See Emerging markets)

It remains, however, that more politically-correct terminology continues to imply a path of progressive industrialization and/or (economic) liberalization not far removed from the more plainly ideological "Third World".

The term Fourth World (as least developed countries) is sometimes used to describe the poorest Third World countries, those which lack industrial infrastructure and the means to build it.

[edit] Newly Industrialized Countries

Countries that have more advanced economies than developing nations in the Third World, but have not yet attained the level of developed countries in the First World, are grouped under the term Newly Industrialized Countries or NICs. These countries are: China, India, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and the GCC states.

[qwertz]

Can't get a handle on this third world thing. If it means: step out the airport, no regimentation like back home, nice weather, chilling out at prices I can still afford, (mostly) friendly people, substantially less thievery, violence and senseless, malicious damage, no waiting for months to get to see a medical specialist, reasonable medical fees, etc. etc. then okay, now I understand, LOS is third world.

[wintermute]

A rating of less than 0.500 denotes a 'less developed country. Thailand rates at 0.778, only 0.144 behind Germany and 21 places above Turkey: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_hum_dev_ind

Of course, you can always argue with those amateurs at the UN can't you?

I got a good chuckle out of it when I took a look and saw #73 Thailand sandwiched inbetween the mighty nations of #74 Samoa and #72 Albania (which is ranked ahead of Thailand in human development according to them.) Think about this for a minute..Albania, a country that still has problems with killings from tribal family vendettas and was communist for 46 years is ahead of Thailand in human development.

Oh yeah and Cuba is at #52, I guess they are well on their way to first world status then, right?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that index.

[zzdocxx]

BTW here is the wikipedia link, I tried to edit it into the post but got confused!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world

[jezchesters]

A rating of less than 0.500 denotes a 'less developed country. Thailand rates at 0.778, only 0.144 behind Germany and 21 places above Turkey: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_hum_dev_ind

Of course, you can always argue with those amateurs at the UN can't you?

I got a good chuckle out of it when I took a look and saw #73 Thailand sandwiched inbetween the mighty nations of #74 Samoa and #72 Albania (which is ranked ahead of Thailand in human development according to them.) Think about this for a minute..Albania, a country that still has problems with killings from tribal family vendettas and was communist for 46 years is ahead of Thailand in human development.

Oh yeah and Cuba is at #52, I guess they are well on their way to first world status then, right?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that index.

I'm not sure it really matters whether you laugh or cry - this is the most universally accepted index of International Development used by governments, academics, journalists, charities, development agencies etc...

Then again, you might be right and they might all be wrong

Edited April 8, 2007 by jezchesters

[Robski]

Well Canuckamuck, I would say it depends on whos front porch you are sitting while you are contemplating the question.

[jumnien]

The term Third World is also disliked as it may imply the false notion that those countries are not a part of the global economic system. Although it is also criticized as being out-of-date, colonialist, othering, and inaccurate, its use continues unabated.[

The term "third world" is applicable perhaps to Bangladesh. However, when used in the context of Thailand it says much more about the psychological makeup of the user than the reality of Thailand.

[cdnvic]

The discussion is supposed to be about how one determines what the term third world applies to and how they determine it, not bashing each other for having an opinion in another bloody "bash Thailand/defend Thailand" argument that goes nowhere.

[andook]

The recent crackdown on Internet and political discussion is starting to feel a bit "Third World" right now. Seems like the military have been talking more than golf with their neighbours to the West.

[wintermute]

A rating of less than 0.500 denotes a 'less developed country. Thailand rates at 0.778, only 0.144 behind Germany and 21 places above Turkey: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_hum_dev_ind

Of course, you can always argue with those amateurs at the UN can't you?

I got a good chuckle out of it when I took a look and saw #73 Thailand sandwiched inbetween the mighty nations of #74 Samoa and #72 Albania (which is ranked ahead of Thailand in human development according to them.) Think about this for a minute..Albania, a country that still has problems with killings from tribal family vendettas and was communist for 46 years is ahead of Thailand in human development.

Oh yeah and Cuba is at #52, I guess they are well on their way to first world status then, right?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that index.

I'm not sure it really matters whether you laugh or cry - this is the most universally accepted index of International Development used by governments, academics, journalists, charities, development agencies etc...

Then again, you might be right and they might all be wrong

Actually it's the way you interpreted the index that's laughable. I'm not disputing the index itself because it's merely a collection of data used to reflect a very broad measuring stick on the relative welfare of a nation. By the way the index contradicts your own optimistic views because Thailand doesn't place too hot on that list. It may be "above" Turkey but it's far behind Cuba. More important economic data would be comparing corruption level, infrastructure, economic equality, economic growth, PPP, business efficiency, innovation, technological achievement etc.. If you look at nationmaster stats Thailand is far behind 1st world nations in all of those areas.

[canuckamuck]

For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

It doesn’t take a genius to see Thailand has got big challenges - especially if the goal is being a carbon copy of stuffy western perfection. It does, apparently, take some courage to say something good about this place. I find this amusing since most of you posters are here by your own free will. What fool would choose to come to a place they could say nothing good about? In this thread you were all given an opportunity to point out some of the benefits of Thailand along with the problems, but most of you look at the garden and see only the dirt.

I chose to leave the west (in part) because it is boring, over-regulated, whiny, and way too expensive. Of all the countries in the world, the ones that I would choose to live in are very few. In Asia, Thailand is the only one, in Europe probably nowhere at all.

My choice is based on Freedom and quality of life: something I value far above comfort or efficiency. ‘Third world’ to me is oppression, persecution, fear, and a lack of human rights, something that the vast majority of the world’s population has to live with, but not in Thailand. Freedom is the single most important factor in quality of life beyond basic survival. Material things are vastly over rated. Poverty is on those who are poor in spirit.

The hypocrites who post here, feel the same way, they just can’t bring themselves to remember the confined, boring, and average lives they escaped, by coming to Thailand. I am sure when they are back home it’s that same freedom they brag about to their land-locked friends.

Thailand is superior for you; this is why you’re here. For those of you who have to be here because of your jobs. I am sorry for your suffering, may it be over quickly.

[wintermute]

What fool would choose to come to a place they could say nothing good about? In this thread you were all given an opportunity to point out some of the benefits of Thailand along with the problems, but most of you look at the garden and see only the dirt.

Most expats realize the lower cost of living and the relative ease of "social" relations here which are two primary factors. The others such as beaches, conveniences, luxuries, are probably a distance second.

My choice is based on Freedom and quality of life: something I value far above comfort or efficiency. 'Third world' to me is oppression, persecution, fear, and a lack of human rights, something that the vast majority of the world's population has to live with, but not in Thailand.

You should read the news sometime buddy Thailand is hardly a bastion of freedom or human rights. As a farang expat you are well insulated from most of the harsh realities here. That's based on the fact that you (most probably) have white skin, a passport from a wealthy nation, and your income level is a lot higher. It's almost like living in a colony which is why Thailand may be appealing to some expats.

Your pie in the sky optimistic appraisal of Thailand really doesn't do it justice. You could live like a king in most developing world countries if given the same economic/social advantages.

[cdnvic]

As Wintermute says, it's easy to become smug and admonish those who point out the negatives in Thailand, but when your financial situation and ability to up and go means you don't have the same worries as the people who are without that option.

Many people who are critical of things in Thailand do not point them out because of hatred of Thailand, but out of legitimate concern. It's only natural when you live in any community to want to participate in improving it for yourself and others. Those who ignore problems and adopt the "if you don't like it you shouldn't be here" attitude miss the point and don't really help Thailand at all with their hear no evil/see no evil thinking.

Yes, there are people with nothing positive to say about Thailand, and those who blindly defend or choose to ignore even it's worst failures.

In between them are the rest who can have a civilized discussion about this country without turning it into a personal thing. I doubt either of them are too happy right now.

Edited April 9, 2007 by cdnvic

[canuckamuck]

You should read the news sometime buddy Thailand is hardly a bastion of freedom or human rights. As a farang expat you are well insulated from most of the harsh realities here. That's based on the fact that you (most probably) have white skin, a passport from a wealthy nation, and your income level is a lot higher. It's almost like living in a colony which is why Thailand may be appealing to some expats.

Your pie in the sky optimistic appraisal of Thailand really doesn't do it justice. You could live like a king in most developing world countries if given the same economic/social advantages.

You should visit Central China, and try to have a chat with 10 friends about anything at all without getting questions from the cops. Or perhaps you should go for a walk with a skirt wearing girlfriend in Saudi Arabia, or write a letter to the local newspaper about the corrupt government while in Vietnam. Maybe you should go to Bangladesh and set up a pub. Maybe you should go to Cuba and set up a radio talk show. Or just try to talk a walk anywhere in Bhutan without being followed. You could always try chatting up a bargirl in Indonesia? If Thailand is so low, it must be easy peasy there.

My pie in the sky attitude “Thailand isn’t all bad, in fact I prefer it to most places”

I apologize for my damaging attitude of appreciation of Thailand. I hope I didn’t quench the rebellion.

[ColPyat]

I chose to leave the west (in part) because it is boring, over-regulated, whiny, and way too expensive. Of all the countries in the world, the ones that I would choose to live in are very few. In Asia, Thailand is the only one, in Europe probably nowhere at all.

My choice is based on Freedom and quality of life: something I value far above comfort or efficiency. ‘Third world’ to me is oppression, persecution, fear, and a lack of human rights, something that the vast majority of the world’s population has to live with, but not in Thailand. Freedom is the single most important factor in quality of life beyond basic survival. Material things are vastly over rated. Poverty is on those who are poor in spirit.

The hypocrites who post here, feel the same way, they just can’t bring themselves to remember the confined, boring, and average lives they escaped, by coming to Thailand. I am sure when they are back home it’s that same freedom they brag about to their land-locked friends.

Thailand is superior for you; this is why you’re here. For those of you who have to be here because of your jobs. I am sorry for your suffering, may it be over quickly.

If you compare income vs. cost of living, then Thailand is for most Thais far more expensive than the west for most westerners, and increasingly so. Before '97 i could feed me and the wife for 100 Baht a day very well, now that doesn't even cover one meal for the two of us. And income in those years has not risen significantly for most Thais.

Lack of human rights is very well established here, if i may point you to the most obvious recent examples, such as the drugwar killings, or the Tak Bai massacre. Both, by the way, have still not seen the guilty parties punished.

So, yes, for me personally life here in Thailand is better than life in the west (sort of, since i have a son i have certain doubts though, as very soon i will have to send the squirt to school and an adequate education here is very expensive, while free in my home country). And i am not going to send my son to a government school here in Bangkok, where fights, drugs and rapes in the overcrowded schools are very common, and the education he will come out with is mostly terrible.

But for most Thais who do not have the amount of money i have (and i am not rich by western standards), their own country means fear, hard work, long hours, and very little pay. For them Thailand is not this great place of freedom you are going on about, but a place that reminds of Dickens UK.

Try to separate your own enjoyment from the reality of the average Thai. You may come to a more realistic and objective assessment of Thailand's situation.

[canuckamuck]

Try to separate your own enjoyment from the reality of the average Thai. You may come to a more realistic and objective assessment of Thailand's situation.

If I came from a poor home in Asia, I would be quite grateful that at least I didn’t live in:

Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, Timor, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka… And I am sure there are a host of other places in Africa and South America, which I could say the same about. These places are all bad places to be poor. Thailand is better. I would say the above list probably represents at least two thirds of the population of Earth.

When my wife, who is Hill tribe and has traveled with me to places like Pakistan, goes back home to her ultra poor bamboo village, she tells everyone how good they have it in Thailand. Is that realistic and objective enough.

[jingjingna]

Try to separate your own enjoyment from the reality of the average Thai. You may come to a more realistic and objective assessment of Thailand's situation.

If I came from a poor home in Asia, I would be quite grateful that at least I didn’t live in:

Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, Timor, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka… And I am sure there are a host of other places in Africa and South America, which I could say the same about. These places are all bad places to be poor. Thailand is better. I would say the above list probably represents at least two thirds of the population of Earth.

When my wife, who is Hill tribe and has traveled with me to places like Pakistan, goes back home to her ultra poor bamboo village, she tells everyone how good they have it in Thailand. Is that realistic and objective enough.

[jingjingna]

Canuckamuck, where did you and your wife travel to in Pakistan? Like Thailand, Pakistan also has slum areas but it also hosts alot of beautiful areas like certain parts of Kashmir/Marie/Punjab etc....I am interested as to why your wife felt any difference between the two countries? Food, language barrier...?

[cdnvic]

That doesn't preclude us from discussing what's wrong in Thailand and how it could be made better. No matter what country you are in, there are people discussing local problems and how they should be fixed.

[jeebusjones]

You should visit Central China, and try to have a chat with 10 friends about anything at all without getting questions from the cops.

I wouldn't do this here. Not long ago, there was a rule that you couldn't talk about the coup or government with more than five people present, or you would be arrested. While technically this rule has been lifted, I still wouldn't try it. Look at what's happening to the anti-coup protesters.

Or perhaps you should go for a walk with a skirt wearing girlfriend in Saudi Arabia

No one's comparing Thailand to Saudi Arabia. But then, to point out the opposite, I would say a thriving sex tourism industry is hardly a measure of a prosperous country. (With one obvious exception in Europe...)

Maybe you should go to Bangladesh and set up a pub.

Wouldn't be as difficult as you think. I have a friend from Bangladesh. Drinking is not a problem for non-Muslims. The only question is, why would you want to?

Maybe you should go to Cuba and set up a radio talk show.

You definitely couldn't do this here, especially if you were going to talk about anything remotely related to politics. Look at what happened to the pro-Toxin station.

Or just try to talk a walk anywhere in Bhutan without being followed.

Bhutan is a very unusual example that is very, very xenophobic. Still, even if you were followed when you went for a walk, nothing bad or scary would come of it. You wouldn't be arrested or given a mandatory piss test, like is happening in good ol' Thailand.

The title of your thread was "Third World in Whose Eyes?" Thailand is a developing nation, or an "NIC," if you please. This puts Thailand on par with Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rica and other sparkling bastions of human development, cleanliness and perfectly functioning democracies. The title of your post implied that you see Thailand to be something approaching developed status. It is very difficult to support that notion, so of course people will point out it's flaws, and why it is still an underdeveloped country. If you had wanted people to point out good things about it, you should have chosen a different title to the thread.

[ColPyat]

Try to separate your own enjoyment from the reality of the average Thai. You may come to a more realistic and objective assessment of Thailand's situation.

If I came from a poor home in Asia, I would be quite grateful that at least I didn’t live in:

Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, Timor, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka… And I am sure there are a host of other places in Africa and South America, which I could say the same about. These places are all bad places to be poor. Thailand is better. I would say the above list probably represents at least two thirds of the population of Earth.

When my wife, who is Hill tribe and has traveled with me to places like Pakistan, goes back home to her ultra poor bamboo village, she tells everyone how good they have it in Thailand. Is that realistic and objective enough.

And when i travel with my wife to neighboring Malaysia, she asks why Malaysia is so much richer even though it started off after WW2 in a worse situation than Thailand.

The difference between many areas in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam to Thailand are only minuscule in comparative standard of living, especially of the poor. India and China are not comparable to Thailand, and are in some areas definitely more poor, but in others far more developed. Iran is far better off than Thailand (if you ignore present warmongering propaganda).

Anyhow, the existence of both richer and poorer countries than Thailand does not change the fact that Thailand is far behind its potential, given its rich soil, geopolitical situation, etc., and presently is facing severe difficulties, social, political and economical, and compared to its closest regional competitors is falling behind. Thailand has, what most observers call the presently most deadly insurgency in the SEA region, which shows no sign of slowing down, more the opposite - it increases steadily. Increase in crime is more than worrying.

But yes, you can still enjoy life in Thailand tremendously - if you have the cash, and are not directly affected by the problems.

[canuckamuck]

Canuckamuck, where did you and your wife travel to in Pakistan? Like Thailand, Pakistan also has slum areas but it also hosts alot of beautiful areas like certain parts of Kashmir/Marie/Punjab etc....I am interested as to why your wife felt any difference between the two countries? Food, language barrier...?

We spend most of our time with people having very low incomes, our travels are humanitarian, and so we have little opportunity for tourism. Downtown Lahore was a close as we got to any tourist places. I have seen a few nice things in Pakistan, but mostly we saw poverty. Which makes my opinion fairly accurate wouldn’t you think? I mean if we are comparing the plight of poor people. I find in Pakistan, often only one breadwinner in a household the rest of the family wishing for work.

[Maigo6]

But yes, you can still enjoy life in Thailand tremendously - if you have the cash, and are not directly affected by the problems.

This is true.

[canuckamuck]

That doesn't preclude us from discussing what's wrong in Thailand and how it could be made better. No matter what country you are in, there are people discussing local problems and how they should be fixed.

Yes Cdnvic you are right, I never suggested otherwise. Just tired of those who are too lazy to give a bit of balance, griping is so easy.

[canuckamuck]

The title of your thread was "Third World in Whose Eyes?" Thailand is a developing nation, or an "NIC," if you please. This puts Thailand on par with Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rica and other sparkling bastions of human development, cleanliness and perfectly functioning democracies. The title of your post implied that you see Thailand to be something approaching developed status. It is very difficult to support that notion, so of course people will point out it's flaws, and why it is still an underdeveloped country. If you had wanted people to point out good things about it, you should have chosen a different title to the thread.

You got me on the Bangladesh one; I should have picked another Muslim country for the anti-drinking point.

If you are basing your response on the title of my thread alone, then you might make all sorts of assumptions I guess, Most of the thread titles here are fairly incoherent.

My opening paragraph explained my point, as is the logical process. Next time perhaps I’ll just pop up a title.

Anyhow the title of my thread more implies a question about the perception of third world characteristics in Thailand, the sub-heading suggest a comparison of good and bad. Pretty easy even without the opening paragraph.

[ThaiGoon]

The term Third World is also disliked as it may imply the false notion that those countries are not a part of the global economic system. Although it is also criticized as being out-of-date, colonialist, othering, and inaccurate, its use continues unabated.[

The term "third world" is applicable perhaps to Bangladesh. However, when used in the context of Thailand it says much more about the psychological makeup of the user than the reality of Thailand.