Is Thailand A 3rd World Country Still?

[BAF]

steveromagnino, I will reply to you in 2 parts since the post is too long it seems to mess the quotings up.

Part 1

Thank you, for finally providing the key to your system.

"Finally??" I have been repeating exactly the same all along the thread...

I have indeed explored the UN site, but given how slow it is to load things up, and how infrequently references occur using YOUR system compared to the system everyone else uses...well what can I say, your post here is the only one clear to me. Thanks.

So....to be clear then... any communist country, or ex communist country, is 2nd world. Therefore, Cuba, is 2nd world, and so is North Korea while Poland and the ex sattellite states of USSR are 2nd world. Totally economically disparate, but ok, that is one group.

Clearly, since we have never been communist, we can also never be second world here in Thailand. So I don't need to spend time looking that up around the net.

You are right on one thing though, cruising the web looknig for definitions is a waste of time, luckly Wikopedia did it for me, establishing....

[...]

HelpContents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by its users in over 200 languages worldwide. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and its contents are free and open."

Forget everything you have "learned" there.

To say that it is contracdictory is an euphemism and anyway you should have found there all and its contrary, not just the selected excerpts that you have copied&pasted (you find there definitions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th world and NI countries).

For example:

NICs "The category of Newly industrializing countries (NICs) is a social/economic classification status applied to several countries around the world by political scientists and economists.

NICs are countries that are not quite yet at the status of a full-fledged first world nation, but still more advanced than countries in the third world or in the category of least developed countries. The most significant feature in a country being classified as a NIC is obtaining a considerable level of industrialisation, the switching of primary business from agricultural to industrial economies.

NICs usually share some other common features, including:

Increased social freedoms and civil rights.

A switch from agricultural to industrial economies, specially in the manufacturing sector.

An increasingly "open" economy, allowing for freer trade with its neighbours, such as that obtained by joining a trade bloc.

NICs often receive support from non-governmental organizations such as the WTO and other internal support bodies."

So... how about we agree between us to use the HDI, and just use their breakdown, since it is, unlike your awkward mixture of political type (communist vs. non-communist vs. the rest) an index based on objective measurement of development in a variety of criteria

"Your" proposed method is based on three (3) criteria and is just a socio-economic approach while I'm telling you that the classification we are talking about comprises hundreds of socio-economical AND political indicators ("yours" 3 included).

The HDI is based on just:

1- life expectancy

2- two education indicators

3- GDP per capita

Now....let's see how they rank in order from top to bottom....

[...]

And that...ladies and Gentlemen...is the top 30. Taiwan is not included since it isn't a country, but according to calculations it would slot in just above Singapore, which makes that, ahem, 3 countries about on par with Portugal which is, and let's get really clear about this, in your definition a first world country right? And since we are on that,

Oh ######.. what was that about Korea? It isn't developed enough to be first world? OK, I know it from business terms, and they are kicking butt, no question. You could argue on the literacy thing but they are better than Japan at english.... and life expectancy is good.

What does all of this have to do with the matter at hand?

What does taking 3 out of the hundreds of socio-economic parameters possible, ranking the countries accordingly and verifying that in the top 30 you find the first world countries plus some NICs tell us?

OK, this is, according to one source, who is in the OECD...

[...]

Not that surprising tat Singapore is missed out, after all, they are tiny and apparently they have also asked not to be included in the group due to lack of development, but nevertheless they are certainly more developed than Korea, and OMG, how did Korea get in there? Guess they must be first world then.... what with their fancy phones and all. And Taiwan would be in there too. Korea joined in 1996, incidentally.

Do you actually know what the OECD is and what its purpose is?

It is, today, just one of the countless organizations for the economic cooperation and (mutual) development.

Being a member means nothing more than accepting to confront oneself with the others on economic matters and sharing informations and experiences.

Far from being an exclusive club of fully developed first world countries it ha members like Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary...

Interestingly, you haven't mentioned them.

So.... having come from a picture that there is only Japan within Asia that is in the 'developed group' which you are calling 'first world' we then jump straight to 3rd world with 2nd world being this awkward catch all for ex comm countries (incidentally, around the web I have REALLY struggled to find definitions for most of YOUR terminology, especially compared to the terminology more often used which you write off as 'PC'. Actually, I am struggling to find definitions at all!

Actually you are struggling to even find the patience to browse the UN website "because it's slow to load things up"...

Haven't you already found proof in your Wikipedia that this isn't MY terminology anyway?

Now let's see just how screwed up this crazy bunch of cowboys are:

according to the UN

'Definition of:

developed, developing countries

There is no established convention for the designation of “developed” and “developing” countries or areas in the United Nations system. In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania and Europe are considered “developed” regions or areas. In international trade statistics, the Southern African Customs Union is also treated as developed region and Israel as a developed country; countries emerging from the former Yugoslavia are treated as developing countries; and countries of eastern Europe and the former USSR countries in Europe are not included under either developed or developing regions.

Reference

United Nations. Standard country or Area Codes for Statistical Use. Series M, No. 49, Rev. 4 (United Nations publication, Sales No. M.98.XVII.9). Available in part at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.

So...what we have is this massive bloated organisation that are full of pumped up civil servant types, bandying around terms, and they haven't even got a decent classification system for them?!

No wonder it can't be summarised in a book for dummies!

"[i]In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania and Europe are considered “developed” regions or areas.[/i]" (no mention of Thailand and South Korea, it seems)

Funny how it exactly corresponds to what I have told you eh?

As for the "[i]There is no established convention [...][/i]" bit, to quote myself:

"[i]This definiton isn't univocal, although the various "flavors" cooked by the different international bodies are largely congruent.[/i]" (as is proved when they go on to say "[i]In common practice [...][/i]"

"[i]The category "3rd world" is part of a [b]complex and blurred[/b] socio-economical-political definition.[/i]"

"[i]Well, you are surely not asking me to report here all of the hundreds different socio-political indicators (and how [b]they are differently defined and misured[/b]) universally used by the the countless international organizations to study, compare, categorize and rank the various socio-political realities around this world... are you?[/i]"

By comparison, some of the things i know a little about...playing the piano, intellectual property law, marketing, finance, creating indexes, yacht design - how strange that these little things are so easy that each can be summarised into a book with definitions and a cover and everything!

You know, trying to assess the stage of the [b]socio[/b]-economic-[b]political[/b] development of a country is a bit harder than comparing yacht designs...

I'll summarise like this.... I think you are fighting a tough debate here... you claim that Thailand is 3rd world, and neither of us have agreed on terms or definitions,

WE do not have to make or agree on any term or definition, we aren't studying the matter here, we are merely researching the work done by real analists. You are not an analist and you can't pretend to be able to discuss the stage of development of a country after having read a couple of links on Wikipedia.

Moreover, you have already found out that [b]Thailand is a developing countryand is not in the same league of the most developed ones[/b] as per virtually any of the links and classifications that you have copied&pasted here apparently without realizing their meaning!

to which you have finally offered a 'rosetta stone' connecting accepted terminology used today

I have "finally" offered that "Rosetta Stone" because I realized you seem to need something like:

[u]3rd world = "developing countries", "less developed countries"[/u]

to understand the meaning of the more "structured" and "complex" sentence:

[u]3rd world countries like Thailand are also called "developing countries" (or "less developed countries", whichever you like better).[/u]

That was (and has been repeated all along the thread) IN MY FIRST POST.

Do you want examples and quotes also for 1st world, 2nd world, 4th world and NICs?

Part 2

(which you claim is solely the result of being 'PC' as opposed to the reality that political boundaries of the cold war are no longer relevant) with your own terminology which you challege us to debate that Thailand is 2nd world or find a link doing so, when by your own definition 2nd world is communist or ex communist.

You scare me.

Somebody on this very thread said that Thailand is a 2nd country even after I had explained what a 2nd world country is so I challenged them to prove it (which is, as you have finally realized, not true).

You are also trying to convince me that Korea is by SOME definition not developed,

Yes, it is not as [b]socio-politically[/b] developed as the first world.

and should be a NIC which is yet another term (what is it in your 1st - 4th world terminology again - the plus 1 right?)

Right.

when it is OECD,

Which doesn't mean that it is a fully developed country as I have proved you above.

it ranks high enough on the HDI to be developed

Which comprises just THREE criteria (and [b]just socio-economic criteria[/b] at that).

and is was also considered to be part of the first world (as an American ally) in the 'non PC' system you continue to use.....

That was just the [u]all political[/u] original meaning of the cold war era classification in 1st, 2nd and 3rd world country. [u]It has nothing to do with the modern socio-economic-political classification in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th world and NICs.[/u]

Well, anyway, I know now about this HDI, and I am back comfortable in the believe that the almighty west is not the only developed part o' this little ol' world. That's what I see from the data I've posted. Can you guide me as to what I am missing about Korea?

What kind of development are you talking about? Economic?

NICs are as, or almost as, developed as the West. I have clearly stated that ad nauseam.

And yes, I go there, actually I was there as late as last month. Can't say I've been to Italy lately, I enjoy Taksin's antics, not sure if his Italian twin is as funny though. Did he do a reality TV show too ler?

Yes, it involves the extrajudicial killing of thousands of Italian citizens by hand of Carabinieri and Polizia in the streets of Roma, Milano, Venezia, Firenze and, IIRC, Napoli.

My point all along has been not that Thailand is or isn't developed, but that we should use terms that make sense, not some antiquated cold war terms.

So what are these term, what is Thailand and how do you answer to this thread's topic "Is Thailand a 3rd World Country still?" (hint: REconsult your links, stats and classifications).

[BAF]

Thailand doesn't fall into any of our pat little western classifications which give some of us comfort.

Thailand is a 2500 year old Kingdom which possesses more culture, grace, and history than all the western countries put together!

"a 2500 year old Kingdom"

"Thailand possesses more culture, grace, and history than all the western countries put together!"

The fact that in Europe there are much older cultures which were refining the ars retorica, cultivating arts and science, founding the longest lasting empire ever and building streets, cities and infrastructures which are still being used while the rest of the world was still painting their faces and shitting in holes in the ground is probably Sci-fi for you...

I think anyone who can classify Thailand as third world sh!thole is wrong. If that's what they want they can move. There are plenty of places in the world which qualify: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few.

Definitely, third world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few, have much to learn from Bangkok. I hope one day they manage to catch up.

[kasi]

The fact that in Europe there are much older cultures which were refining the ars retorica, cultivating arts and science, founding the longest lasting empire ever and building streets, cities and infrastructures which are still being used while the rest of the world was still painting their faces and shitting in holes in the ground is probably Sci-fi for you...

Sorry I think there was an evolved culture in Siam long before Romulus and Remus started sucking wolf tit!

Definitely, third world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few, have much to learn from Bangkok. I hope one day they manage to catch up.

I know where I would choose to live!

If you don't like Bangkok or Thailand perhaps.....

[thaibebop]

Thailand doesn't fall into any of our pat little western classifications which give some of us comfort.

Thailand is a 2500 year old Kingdom which possesses more culture, grace, and history than all the western countries put together!

"a 2500 year old Kingdom" Yes, he is right, check the year number used in Thailand.

"Thailand possesses more culture, grace, and history than all the western countries put together!"

The fact that in Europe there are much older cultures which were refining the ars retorica, cultivating arts and science, founding the longest lasting empire ever and building streets, cities and infrastructures which are still being used while the rest of the world was still painting their faces and shitting in holes in the ground is probably Sci-fi for you... I guess you forgot about China?

I think anyone who can classify Thailand as third world sh!thole is wrong. If that's what they want they can move. There are plenty of places in the world which qualify: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few.

Definitely, third world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few, have much to learn from Bangkok. I hope one day they manage to catch up.

[kasi]

History lesson 101

[thaibebop]

History lesson 101

Nice try, doubt anyone will read it.

They just wanna be right.

[kasi]

History lesson 101

Nice try, doubt anyone will read it.

They just wanna be right.

At least I learned a little about Thailand reading.

Some of these folks should just stay in Chicago or whatever gilded western sh!thole provenance that miscarried them!

[thaibebop]

History lesson 101

Nice try, doubt anyone will read it.

They just wanna be right.

At least I learned a little about Thailand reading.

Some of these folks should just stay in Chicago or whatever gilded western sh!thole provenance that miscarried them!

Honesty is the best policy.

[Tippaporn]

Well, Is Thailand A 3rd World Country Still? I'm just sitting back letting others do the work and holding out for the long awaited conclusion. Doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon.

Geez, I guess I'll have to make up my own mind after all.

[Donz]

its safe to say no-one knows who's a 1st/2nd/3rd/NIC world countries.

All the reading has given me a headache, i have no idea what half the shit means

[Asiantiger]

Yes

[zzap]

The year number used in thailand relates to Buddha, birth, death or year of enlightenment I am not sure.

But it bears no relation to any event in Thai history, "Thailand" didn't exist at that time.

[thedude]

I've asked for a link to get details on the case you brought up and all I got is a copy&past mostly from the same BBC article with no link to it and where many things are mentioned with no references to the original cases (names, places, rulings' nos etc).

Great journalismn and great reporting by you NOT.

For "my easy reference" I need a link and/or names/references not anonimous excerpts. I had to google all of it loosing a lot of time chasing this anonimous crap.

Premise 1: most of the legal terms I'm going to use are directly translated from the Italian so they will probably be inaccurate.

Premise 2: the Corte di Cassazione is the third grade of judgement in Italy, after the Tribunale (Civile and Penale) and the Corte di Appello.

[deleted your tiresome one-sided and probably inaccurate translation of italian case law]

As my circumstantiated reply shows, the only thing consistently shown here is crappy journalism and crappy researching&reporting skills.

BAF, i'm not the one writing or reporting on those "crappy" articles. The anonymous crap you refer to was published by reputable news agencies and broadcast around the world. A simple google search of the news will generate pages of international news reports on italian court decisions, many of which made the news precisely because of their controversial nature. There is really no point trying to translate italian court documents and explain the circumstances to me because you can't change the court decision that was made in the end, and you can't change the way those court decisions were interpreted by the international press, or even the women's movement in italy itself.

I'm sorry to say that reading reports like this over the years have not left me with a sparkling impression of the italian judicial system. You asked me a hypothetical question on whether i'd prefer to be handled by the italian or south korean judicial system when it came to a serious crime. You were trying to use the Italian judicial system as an example to show the difference between a 1st world country and that of a NIC like south korea, allegedly not deserving of 1st world status because of "social-political" reasons.

I know that both countries have well established judicial systems, both countries have orderly and modern penal facilities (although i'm not sure if i prefer to be in an italian goal). I reasoned however that the idea of getting a fair trial lies not so much on whether i will get off lightly if convicted, but more so on whether i believe consistent and knowable standards will be applied in arriving at the judgement. This is especially important if i am innocent in the first place. This is where the Italy argument fell apart in my assessment. I chose south korea not only because i think it is better, i chose south korea also because i had a dubious impression of the alternative.

my impression is that south korea is a modern, clean, efficient, forward looking democratic country. the country has a free press, a low crime rate, extremely high educational standards, an ancient eastern culture with important values like respect, honour, integrity. corrupt politicians and businessmen have been consistently exposed, prosecuted and put in goal in south korea. you don't see beggers and touts and homeless people sleeping at train stations in south korea, not sure i can say the same for italy. so please tell me, how is south korea socially-politically lacking when compared to 1st world countries like italy?

Edited February 24, 2006 by thedude

[zzap]

I think anyone who can classify Thailand as third world sh!thole is wrong. If that's what they want they can move. There are plenty of places in the world which qualify: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few.

Definitely, third world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few, have much to learn from Bangkok. I hope one day they manage to catch up.

Thank you, BAF, for posting an example how the term "3rd world" is used in a regoratory manner with no relevance to any classification system.

[shasta]

I've asked for a link to get details on the case you brought up and all I got is a copy&past mostly from the same BBC article with no link to it and where many things are mentioned with no references to the original cases (names, places, rulings' nos etc).

Great journalismn and great reporting by you NOT.

For "my easy reference" I need a link and/or names/references not anonimous excerpts. I had to google all of it loosing a lot of time chasing this anonimous crap.

Premise 1: most of the legal terms I'm going to use are directly translated from the Italian so they will probably be inaccurate.

Premise 2: the Corte di Cassazione is the third grade of judgement in Italy, after the Tribunale (Civile and Penale) and the Corte di Appello.

[deleted your tiresome one-sided and probably inaccurate translation of italian case law]

As my circumstantiated reply shows, the only thing consistently shown here is crappy journalism and crappy researching&reporting skills.

BAF, i'm not the one writing or reporting on those "crappy" articles. The anonymous crap you refer to was published by reputable news agencies and broadcast around the world. A simple google search of the news will generate pages of international news reports on italian court decisions, many of which made the news precisely because of their controversial nature. There is really no point trying to translate italian court documents and explain the circumstances to me because you can't change the court decision that was made in the end, and you can't change the way those court decisions were interpreted by the international press, or even the women's movement in italy itself.

I'm sorry to say that reading reports like this over the years have not left me with a sparkling impression of the italian judicial system. You asked me a hypothetical question on whether i'd prefer to be handled by the italian or south korean judicial system when it came to a serious crime. You were trying to use the Italian judicial system as an example to show the difference between a 1st world country and that of a NIC like south korea, allegedly not deserving of 1st world status because of "social-political" reasons.

I know that both countries have well established judicial systems, both countries have orderly and modern penal facilities (although i'm not sure if i prefer to be in an italian goal). I reasoned however that the idea of getting a fair trial lies not so much on whether i will get off lightly if convicted, but more so on whether i believe consistent and knowable standards will be applied in arriving at the judgement. This is especially important if i am innocent in the first place. This is where the Italy argument fell apart in my assessment. I chose south korea not only because i think it is better, i chose south korea also because i had a dubious impression of the alternative.

my impression is that south korea is a modern, clean, efficient, forward looking democratic country. the country has a free press, a low crime rate, extremely high educational standards, an ancient eastern culture with important values like respect, honour, integrity. corrupt politicians and businessmen have been consistently exposed, prosecuted and put in goal in south korea. you don't see beggers and touts and homeless people sleeping at train stations in south korea, not sure i can say the same for italy. so please tell me, how is south korea socially-politically lacking when compared to 1st world countries like italy?

I fully agree with you .

[BAF]

Sorry I think there was an evolved culture in Siam long before Romulus and Remus started sucking wolf tit!

Oh I know what "you think" and that is why I am ROTFL

Check your maths, even assuming as good your hilarious "2500 years old Thai kingdom" (reply elsewhere) Romulus and Remus were sucking wolf tit and, traditionally, founding Roma 300 years before that and the traditional foundation of Roma in the VIII century A.C. (753 a.C.) is 2100 years BEFORE the traditional foundation of the Kingdom of Ayutthaya (1350 d.C.)

In reality a Roman monarchy was already existing from at least 200 years before the date tradinationally assumed as its foundation and, above all, at the time there were many others well established and more powerful cultures in Italy (for example the Etrurians) and elsewhere in Europe (just think of the Greeks).

I know where I would choose to live!

If you don't like Bangkok or Thailand perhaps.....

I LOVE Bangkok and Thailand

I don't like the stinking hot weather, the mostly inedible food and, especially, the omnipresent dirt, smell and noise but I do love the cheap boozing and cheap whoring that Bangkok and Thailand offer me

Of course if, compared to the average American or French, I was as rich as I am compared to the average Thai I would move to one of those aforementioned "sh!tholes" (Los Angeles, Paris etc) in a heartbeat

[steveromagnino]

BAF

FOr a living, I actually have worked as an analyst in the past, classifying things without the benefits of all the dross available on countries. It isn't hard. You use statistics a lot to come up with groups, and usually define the differences between them using measures of statistical significance....

The usual steps, are coming up with some classifiers, coming up with a way to measure data and then putting objects into the groups. There are some stats to test significance of difference and so on, but basically it is very simple. Children do the same thing putting piles of things together that are red, green and so on.

To do this for countries is not hard, and I merely picked ONE way of doing it, since you said that you are not willing to share the ones you are using, on the basis they are so complex, and I should go find out myself. I realise Wikipedia is FAR from the world's biggest authority, but it is a good start point. If you can point me to a better place than the UN (which is a site that our network cannot upload for the most part) then I'll look at that. [As far as your 'strawman argument' re. the wikipedia, unless you are going to refute something I have quoted, then it is unimportant of the source right, since most of the bits I posted were referenced back to UN and others and since you did not raise issues, I'll assume what I posted was ok then....]

This is mere data analysis. I did much the same thing when I was fresh out of university, I've had the chance to do bits and pieces of this sort of work for organisations associated with groups like the UN (admittedly in a financial only component); I've done it for academic research and it is not hard. Of course what to do with the results is another matter, but we aren't concerning ourselves with that here.

And BTW I assume you might not be familiar with yacht design... Compared to yacht design, this classifying stuff is a proverbial walk in the park. Much of the science of which is still unable to be explained, where it is still an art in many ways to figure out what is 'fast' and what is 'not' and despite this most of the modern theory of how to do something new can still be summarised in one decent book, such as the book by Bethwaite for high performance sailing.

I have NEVER stated that Thailand is not a developing country. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? I have stated that people do not use the term 3rd world anymore - it is antiquated and confusing and the definition is not clear - so could we use some other term. You have responded that 3rd world is fine, and have now introduced 4 + 1, but continue to only offer commentary that I should look things up myself if I don't believe your system. Your claim as to why people use terms which are far more intuitive and use far more widespread you attribute to 'PC' and in fact blame the confusion on this. er WHAT? At least as far as this thread goes, you are the one responsible for the confusion!

Please refer to what I wrote, for your reference as to why I object to Thailand being referred to as 3rd world; mostly because people don't understand what 3rd world means, most people I know have NEVER heard of 4th world + 1 that you are pulling from somewhere, and generally it is nice when experts in their fields speak a language others can understand, especially when what they are talking about is not remotely difficult to understand if they just used terminology that is clearly defined....

I stated

'1. Because 3rd world means not part of the west, or the communist band; with regards to backwardness other than to comment mistakenly about Thailand economically and match it alongside Cambodia and Laos as a 3rd world country is not very accurate, and if someone was to do so around me then I would try to explain to them why this might not be the case, and ask for clarification about what they meant by 3rd world, since to me it is no longer a particularly useful concept with the fall of communism. So in answer to your comment, well I object to Thailand being referred to as a 3rd world country with regards to backwardness. That would like saying USA is a licencious country, with regards to the country seeming to have a lot of people with driving licenses'

You keep justifying using a system that seems not to be in significant use compared to other definitions (such as NIC, Developing, blah blah blah which you keep having to use so we can understand what YOU mean by the worlds and the +1 you are using, when you could just switch to the language that most of the world seems to be using).

Language develops. For instance... your own language. YOU start by saying:

'The 1st world is made up of all of the Western countries plus Japan and the 2nd world was made up of the communist countries and is today made up of those same countries but with some of the now ex-communist countries sliding outside the "2nd world" category towards the 3rd world and some towards the 1st (the latter mostly impeded by socio-political considerations rather than by economical ones).'

In your first post you make NO mention of the +1, and have conveniently added this to handle Korea (and presumably Singapore) when pulled up on it, the NIC, and we also have added a 4th world as well somewhere along the way so now we are having 5 groups....

'Malaysia can be considered, today, a NIC, Thailand is a 3rd world country, Laos, Burma and Cambodia are 4th world countries.'

So Malaysia and Korea are NICs, ok, fair enough, but why not mention them at the beginning!

You even admit as such in your own comment:

'I haven't attempted to give the expression "3rd World" a definition at all

I have written that "3rd World" is a category part of a complex and blurred socio-economical-political definition and I have then just completed the list of the other remaining categories.'

It took 6 pages before you responded to an accurate list of definitions (agreed not definitions, but at least now I can look at UN documents etc, and know what they are talking about, since they use the 'PC' words that everyone except you seems to also now prefer)

1st world = "most developed countries", "developed countries"

2nd world = communist and, in part (see my previous posts), ex-communist countries

3rd world = "developing countries", "less developed countries"

4th world = "least developed countries"

NIC = "newly industrialized countries" which are technically 3rd world countries (hence my "4+1" remark in previous posts) that have economically developed to, or almost to, 1st world level but which still have to socially and/or politically catch up

All the while, you continue to make comments like on page 6, 'It's not MY terminology, it's the correct terminology. I've simply pointed this out to you.' ' I have simply pointed out to you what the universally accepted, well known and well studied reality is.'

The problem is, I get the impression it IS your terminology, and it is not a universally accepted well known well studied reality.

Incidentally, I see we are in total agreement about Thailand, it is developing. I have never debated this. I totally agree Thailand is not developed, therefore by YOUR own definition above Thailand can never be 2nd world, so stop trying to push that one on us, we get it.

I would debate that using terminology like 'third world' is somewhat pointless, because people don't always understand what that means. Therefore, I said right at the beginning, as have others, that Thailand is a developing country. People get that.

You've totally reinforced my belief that 'third world' is a poor choice of term because everyone takes something different away from its meaning. You can stick to your guns and keep using it, but you are in a minority. Regarding your other choice of word 'Negro', good luck with that in South Central LA, I am sure the 'Negroes' in that area will surely enjoy your choice of words.

I look at a country which is, in my opinion (to use your words) a 'third world sh!thole' like Italy (and you've levelled similar criticisms at other cities, so my opinion is no different to yours) and I would argue that Korea has surpassed Italy in many areas of development. Which bit of the socio, economic or political component of Korea do you consider to be so far behind Italy? Ah...police and women's rights... I recall now. So.... can you provide some decent indicators I can look at to compare the two countries, since it is obvious that Korea is almost on par with Italy and is going to overtake Italy economically shortly, and your contention is that Korea is stopped from being 'first world' (by your own definition, and not by the classification cold war period definitions of others) due to lack of socio development right?

'This kind of stuff is part of what I have been studying in a past life and whenever I get into this kind of discussion I usually get banned because most people can't stand honest and solidly argued truths '

If you believe that having a debate using terminology you don't and refuse to define clearly, with a constantly changing set of categories is an honest and solidly argued truth...well clearly we have quite different views on what constitutes a debate.

[BAF]

Yes, he is right, check the year number used in Thailand.

You mean the number based on the Buddha's birth 543 years before Christ?

I guess you forgot about China?

China has mostly always been a regional self-contained reality until its very recent slow rise on the international scene. Roma has ruled and directly influenced most of the then known world (involving 3 continents) like no one has ever done. Ever heard of the expression "Roma caput mundi"?

[BAF]

History lesson 101

From that link "Sukhothai (13th - 15th Century)

The state that is still regarded by Thai historical tradition as the "first Thai kingdom" was Sukhothai. "

Have you read your own link before giving history lessons and writing that "Thailand is a 2500 year old Kingdom"?

Nice try, doubt anyone will read it.

They just wanna be right.

Have YOU read it??

...or are you one of those who "just wanna be right"?

[BAF]

BAF, i'm not the one writing or reporting on those "crappy" articles.

Who has reported them here then?

The anonymous crap you refer to was published by reputable news agencies and broadcast around the world. A simple google search of the news will generate pages of international news reports on italian court decisions, many of which made the news precisely because of their controversial nature. There is really no point trying to translate italian court documents and explain the circumstances to me because you can't change the court decision that was made in the end,

I am, in fact, reporting the court decisions that were made taken directly from the CENTRO ELETTRONICO DI DOCUMENTAZIONE della Corte Suprema di Cassazione (http://www.giustizia.it/cassazione/ced_cass_index.htm) which, roughly, stands for the "Data Processing Centre and Archive of the Supreme Court of Cassation".

and you can't change the way those court decisions were interpreted by the international press,

You mean a couple of reference-less internet articles which you haven't even linked?

or even the women's movement in italy itself.

The women's movement is fighting the fact that in the case of a couple legally married and where the father is alive at the time of their children's birth their offspring can't take the mother's surname ALONE (but they can still take their mother's surname followed by their father's surname or their father's surname followed by their mother's surname).

The worthless crap you have posted says that "children can't take their mother's last name as a surname unless the father is unknown."

I have showed you that is simply NOT TRUE.

A father can be known but the couple is not legally married and the children can take their mother's surname, their father's surname, their father's surname followed by their mother's surname and their mother's surname followed by their father's surname.

A father can be known but he is dead at the time of the birth of the children and the children can take their mother's surname, their father's surname, their father's surname followed by their mother's surname and their mother's surname followed by their father's surname.

A father can be known, alive and legally married and the children, reached the age of 18, can take their mother's surname, their father's surname, their father's surname followed by their mother's surname and their mother's surname followed by their father's surname.

All of the above doesn't come from some shitty mass-media "customs&society" (that's how they are called in Italian journos' jargon) articles designed to shock and "sell" but from the official website of the Italian Ministry of Justice (www.giustizia.it).

I'm sorry to say that reading reports like this over the years have not left me with a sparkling impression of the italian judicial system.

Are you STILL referring to the ones that I have just shown you as totally inaccurate???

You asked me a hypothetical question on whether i'd prefer to be handled by the italian or south korean judicial system when it came to a serious crime. You were trying to use the Italian judicial system as an example to show the difference between a 1st world country and that of a NIC like south korea, allegedly not deserving of 1st world status because of "social-political" reasons.

I know that both countries have well established judicial systems, both countries have orderly and modern penal facilities (although i'm not sure if i prefer to be in an italian goal). I reasoned however that the idea of getting a fair trial lies not so much on whether i will get off lightly if convicted, but more so on whether i believe consistent and knowable standards will be applied in arriving at the judgement. This is especially important if i am innocent in the first place. This is where the Italy argument fell apart in my assessment. I chose south korea not only because i think it is better, i chose south korea also because i had a dubious impression of the alternative.

my impression is that south korea is a modern, clean, efficient, forward looking democratic country. the country has a free press, a low crime rate, extremely high educational standards, an ancient eastern culture with important values like respect, honour, integrity. corrupt politicians and businessmen have been consistently exposed, prosecuted and put in goal in south korea. you don't see beggers and touts and homeless people sleeping at train stations in south korea, not sure i can say the same for italy.

It was YOU to ask me to compare two places you know nothing about and you then went on to explain to me why you prefer a country (South Korea) where you have, admittedly, never set foot over another country (Italy) where not only you have never set foot but you have also a negative bias on based on some "news reports" which I have just proved wrong!

So while I was talking about the stage of socio-economical-political development of the two countries as defined by hundreds of international recognized indicators you were just talking about your personal impressions.

BTW, we now know that your personal impressions about Italy were based on untrue "news reports" but what about your personal impressions about South Korea? You haven't even bothered to provide me links to show the South Korean approach to the same matters you raised about Italy yet you "have the impression" that they do better... What's their approach and what are their rulings?

so please tell me, how is south korea socially-politically lacking when compared to 1st world countries like italy?

I assumed you knew the two countries (which YOU have chosen) and I have tried in the simplest of way. You are looking at the result.

[BAF]

I think anyone who can classify Thailand as third world sh!thole is wrong. If that's what they want they can move. There are plenty of places in the world which qualify: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few.

Definitely, third world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few, have much to learn from Bangkok. I hope one day they manage to catch up.

Thank you, BAF, for posting an example how the term "3rd world" is used in a regoratory manner with no relevance to any classification system.

Why it doesn't surprise me that you haven't understood that I was just repeating kasi's own wording?

And BTW, where does the derogatory connotation (which kasi gives to the category "third world") come from if not from the term "sh!tholes"??

[zzap]

Kasi didn't say "3rd world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris,..." , you did.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you avoid to address the point made, again?

[BAF]

Kasi didn't say "3rd world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris,..." , you did.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you avoid to address the point made, again?

kasi, post #86 "I think anyone who can classify Thailand as third world sh!thole is wrong. If that's what they want they can move. There are plenty of places in the world which qualify: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few."

Why doesn't it surprise me that you are unable to scroll or search within the thread you are reading and even posting?

And where is the answer to: where does the derogatory connotation (which kasi gives to the category "third world") come from if not from the term "sh!tholes"??

[zzap]

I suggest it is connecting the term '3rd world' to the word 'sh!thole' which makes it derogatory in this example.

Try: "developing world sh!thole", "country at the edge of industrialisation sh!thole" would anyone use this to convey a derogatory meaning?

Now, put on your reading glasses and go through the last few posts again:

3rd world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris,...

Does the use of the term '3rd world' here bear any relevance to any classification, or is the intent and actual use purely derogatory?

Have a nice day!

[BAF]

I suggest it is connecting the term '3rd world' to the word 'sh!thole' which makes it derogatory in this example.

So you have got it, at last.

Try: "developing world sh!thole", "country at the edge of industrialisation sh!thole" would anyone use this to convey a derogatory meaning?

So what? The point isn't to establish which expression sounds better when accosted to the term "sh!thole" to convey a derogatory message.

Now, put on your reading glasses and go through the last few posts again:

3rd world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris,...

Does the use of the term '3rd world' here bear any relevance to any classification, or is the intent and actual use purely derogatory?

kasi was stating that Los Angeles and Paris were the true third world instead of Thailand, whether he meant it literally or had the sole intent of being derogatory to these places you have, of course, to ask him. Not me.

Now, since we all know that Thailand, and not Los Angeles, is third world, and since we all know that being third world means being less developed saying that Los Angeles is less developed than Thailand in this instance shows, of course, an insulting intention.

The point, zzap, is that saying that Thailand is a less developed country while it is indeed a less developed country can't have in any way an implied insulting connotation.

In fact, to "make it clear" kasi has had to add something like "sh!thole".

[PeaceBlondie]

What does the year 2549 have to do with it? Or to quote Tina Turner, what's love got to do with it? I worked among Maya Indians, some of whom still kept time by a calendar that began over 3,100 BC.

Age of a culture (most of them totally legendary, like Rome and Maya, or Siam) or a religion doesn't make it better, just because it's older.

Thailand is a developing country, not a numerable country. It is industrialized, but not fully so, because it is (present continuous tense used as a present participle) a developing country.

Be having a good day.

[zzap]

I suggest it is connecting the term '3rd world' to the word 'sh!thole' which makes it derogatory in this example.

So you have got it, at last.

Try: "developing world sh!thole", "country at the edge of industrialisation sh!thole" would anyone use this to convey a derogatory meaning?

So what? The point isn't to establish which expression sounds better when accosted to the term "sh!thole" to convey a derogatory message.

Now, put on your reading glasses and go through the last few posts again:

3rd world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris,...

Does the use of the term '3rd world' here bear any relevance to any classification, or is the intent and actual use purely derogatory?

kasi was stating that Los Angeles and Paris were the true third world instead of Thailand, whether he meant it literally or had the sole intent of being derogatory to these places you have, of course, to ask him. Not me.

Now, since we all know that Thailand, and not Los Angeles, is third world, and since we all know that being third world means being less developed saying that Los Angeles is less developed than Thailand in this instance shows, of course, an insulting intention.

The point, zzap, is that saying that Thailand is a less developed country while it is indeed a less developed country can't have in any way an implied insulting connotation.

In fact, to "make it clear" kasi has had to add something like "sh!thole".

Any chance of getting an answer to what I have posted?

[BAF]

I suggest it is connecting the term '3rd world' to the word 'sh!thole' which makes it derogatory in this example.

So you have got it, at last.

Try: "developing world sh!thole", "country at the edge of industrialisation sh!thole" would anyone use this to convey a derogatory meaning?

So what? The point isn't to establish which expression sounds better when accosted to the term "sh!thole" to convey a derogatory message.

Now, put on your reading glasses and go through the last few posts again:

3rd world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris,...

Does the use of the term '3rd world' here bear any relevance to any classification, or is the intent and actual use purely derogatory?

kasi was stating that Los Angeles and Paris were the true third world instead of Thailand, whether he meant it literally or had the sole intent of being derogatory to these places you have, of course, to ask him. Not me.

Now, since we all know that Thailand, and not Los Angeles, is third world, and since we all know that being third world means being less developed saying that Los Angeles is less developed than Thailand in this instance shows, of course, an insulting intention.

The point, zzap, is that saying that Thailand is a less developed country while it is indeed a less developed country can't have in any way an implied insulting connotation.

In fact, to "make it clear" kasi has had to add something like "sh!thole".

Any chance of getting an answer to what I have posted?

3,141592

Age of a culture (most of them totally legendary, like Rome and Maya, or Siam) or a religion doesn't make it better, just because it's older.

I agree on that fact that older doesn't necessarily means better, just two other points:

1- there is nothing legendary in the fact that the foundation of the first "Thai" Kingdom is actually dated around the XV century (as the Thais themselves say)

2- there is nothing legendary in the fact that Roma did exist in the year 753 before Christ, the legendary bit is Romolo and Remo sucking a wolf's tit and the fact that the Roman myths fixed the fondation of Roma at that precise year. The actual year of foundation isn't of course known but is placed a couple of centuries BEFORE the traditional one.

Thailand is a developing country, not a numerable country. It is industrialized, but not fully so, because it is (present continuous tense used as a present participle) a developing country.

So, how do you call a "fully industrialized country"?

And, do you differentiate between the stage of development of, for example, the US and Thailand? And how do you call the US?

[Octaviousbp]

I think whether or not one views Thailand as "Third World" is a question of ontology. To my understanding, 1st, 2nd and 3rd World were categories of nation-states created out of Cold War neo-realist theory. The first two massively generalized countries into the "Free World" and "The Soviets" while the Third World was Non-Aligned.

Since the Cold War is technically long over, the terminology wouldn't seem to apply anymore. However it is still quite prevelent. I think it has to do with the fact that many people still think in these terms. The need to categorize complex variables into over-simplified homogonizations.

I had mentioned earlier about notions of history as well. The question "is Thailand still 3rd World?" is one of teleology. It assumes that development is a linnear progression, with a fixed goal at the end... usually one established by "Western" standards. Once again, whether or not you buy in to this depends on your ontological starting point.

Finally, the question regarding the age of Thailand as a Kingdom, I have to agree with BAF. As a Kingdom, Thailand has only been around since Sukothai. People are quick to lump all of the people living within the physical boundaries of Thailand as "Thai". But to my knowledge, aren't the people living in Issarn actually of Lao ethnicity? I also thought that when the boundary of the nation-state was drawn for Thailand, everyone living West of the Mekong was "Thai" and to the East "Lao". There are many ethnicities that live in Thailand, and to say their's is a history of over 2500 years is true, however by no means is it a unitary one.

There is a good book regarding the notion of "Thainess" that someone from this forum actually recommended (Thanks!) called "Siam Mapped" by Thongchai Winichakul. It gives a lot of food-for-thought for conceptualizing Thailand as a nation.

Just my 2 cents...

PS - Despite the digressions, an interesting topic!

[BAF]

I think whether or not one views Thailand as "Third World" is a question of ontology. To my understanding, 1st, 2nd and 3rd World were categories of nation-states created out of Cold War neo-realist theory. The first two massively generalized countries into the "Free World" and "The Soviets" while the Third World was Non-Aligned.

Correct.

Since the Cold War is technically long over, the terminology wouldn't seem to apply anymore. However it is still quite prevelent. I think it has to do with the fact that many people still think in these terms.

It has to do with the fact that the all-political original definition has been substituted by a much more complex socio-economical-political one.

The need to categorize complex variables into over-simplified homogonizations.

"Developed/developing/least developed countries" is a much more over-simplified homogonization.

I had mentioned earlier about notions of history as well. The question "is Thailand still 3rd World?" is one of teleology. It assumes that development is a linnear progression, with a fixed goal at the end... usually one established by "Western" standards. Once again, whether or not you buy in to this depends on your ontological starting point.

Nope, it's exactly the other way around!

It's using the PC equivalent expressions that assumes that the "developing countries" have to reach a fixed goal at the end (the "developed country" status).

Categorizing the status of development of each country into 4+1 categories merely means taking a virtual picture of the present situation to effectively research, study, compare, aid and cooperate.

The fact that these categories have an ordinal number in them means that the desired goal is to be in the first BUT it doesn't indicate the achievement of the "final result" since countries in the first world are still socio-economical-politically developing and between different developing countries you are always going to find differences and you will always have to research, study and compare them (to aid and cooperate) so categories will always be in place.