Third World

this term for countries that are marginalized economically and politically in the international system (also infrequently used to describe minority groups as a whole within a larger culture) is criticized for being imprecise (definitions vary), simplistic (the countries differ widely from each other), antagonistic (like "nonwhite," it's a catch-all way of marking "us" and "them"), and demeaning (no matter how you look at it, being third is not as good as being first or second). "The Third World is gone.... The countries once assigned to the Third World are still there, but the concept of the Third World is no longer connected to any reality" (Robert J. Samuelson, Newsweek). The First World supposedly included industrialized democracies, the Second World was the communist bloc, and the Third World was everyone else. However, with the disappearance of the communist bloc as such, this already simplistic geopolitical system no longer works. "Nonaligned" and "unaligned" are political rather than economic concepts. Left are such labels as: emerging/emergent nations, developing nations, overexploited (or economically exploited) nations, newly industrializing/industrialized country (NIC), nonindustrialized nations, impoverished populations, post-colonial regions. The World Bank uses LICUS (Low-Income Countries Under Stress) and the British government refers to those at the bottom as "fragile." The New York Times style guide recommends "economically underdeveloped or emerging nations." As in all good writing and speaking, precise description is better: name the relevant nations and identify what they have in common. Bonus thought: "Study after study has taught us that there is no tool for development more effective than the empowerment of women" (former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan). See also culturally deprived/disadvantaged, illiterate, primitive, savage.