View On WordPress

Lafforgue’s book is available on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/banned-from-north-korea/id687297046?mt=11&ign-mpt=uo%3D4 and his interview with The Daily Mail can be accessed here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624164/North-Korea-Starving-people-child-labourers-dilapidated-homes-appear-harrowing-new-images-taken-inside-rogue-state.html

Do you know what I hate? Those third world countries who bomb schools the Americans build for little girls to learn in.  Third world countries seem to believe girls don't have the right to learn.  An all-female school in Afghanistan got bombed.  Five teachers and three girls were killed.  More were wounded.  Two girls got kidnapped from the bombsite.  Both of them have been found.  One girl is ten, she has cigarette burns over 70% of her body. The other is fifteen, she had hot oil thrown onto her face and now she is blind.  Reblog this if you want to help in the search for the people who did this.  Reblog if you want to stop people like them and bring them to justice.

Marriage by abduction accounts for over 60% of marriages in Ethiopia!

I've been thinking, and it has to do with third-world countries in relation to first-world countries. Why is it, that we refer to under-developed/developing countries/nations as third-world? And why do we refer to developed countries as first-world? In context, the naming stems from an exploitation system in which the first-world nation takes goods/services/raw materials from the third-world, in exchange for little or nothing at all. Put into context, the first-world countries would be nothing without the third-world countries being there for them to exploit. The meaning of the naming is clearly for purposes of perpetuating superiority complexes; of which complexes: race/ethnicity/political/economical/or a mixture of some or all, I'm not quite sure. It seems to me that the naming obviously doesn't help the developing nation, but I don't know if it adds any more hindrance (likely it does, I'm just keenly unaware); likewise, I don't see the naming hindering the developed nation, but does it add in someway to the perceived superiority of said nation? I can't imagine anyone or any state/country/institution that is upholding and perpetuating a superiority over something would have a naming system that does nothing to further perpetuate the superiority. I'm implying here that the name, the title "first-world", helps to perpetuate superiority more than the actual exploitation of the developing nation, from which the developed nation gained its power. I would like to discuss this further, perhaps when my brain has been rested.