What do westerners think about third and second world countries?
964657
I think a lot of westerners dont think about 2nd and 3rd world countries. I think westerners have a lot of other things that press them and dont allow for the prioritization of other countries, or even states within their own country.  I think that's why you have only small handfuls of organizations that are dedicated to the cause, and many other causes. Money makes the world go 'round, so when it comes to donating, no matter where in the world, if you cant see directly where the money goes, you tend to keep it, That seems to be the norm. Hopefully that makes sense. Oh, and I am very in touch with people-their lives and cultures and tribulations. This is something that has been a factor in my family's life since before I was born and even more so today. \nI cannot say which country I would go to, because if I could travel, I'd visit them all.
1073950
Most third world countries. Look at the poverty and depravity that exist in those areas. The rest of the world should be noted for their non-participation. Action speaks better than words!
138604
the so-called first world countries. US, Canada, Japan and the rest of Europe.
299672
Western imperialism produced various reactions in Africa and Asia. The first response was simply to try to drive the foreigners away. The general failure of this traditionalist response then led large masses to accept European rule, which did bring some improvements. A third response was the modernist response of Western-educated natives, who were repelled by Western racism and attracted by Western ideals of national independence and economic progress. Thus, imperialism and reactions to it spread Western civilization to non-Western lands." hope this helps
544985
I would have to say that many inviduals in Western Societies are very close-minded, and do not concern themselves with issues that do not directly affect them.  When witnessing such events as this, which occured in other countries and to other people, their heart and minds do reach out and sympathize - seeing that it wasn't "one of them".
1002821
Very well thought out question.  I commend you for putting some brainpower around framing the question.\n\nThe answer, in my humble opinion, is complex and multi-dimensional.\n\nLet's start with the underlying intent of your question which is really whether the USA has a MORAL obligation to work with the United Nations to prevent the collapse of third-world states.\n\nThe preliminary and qualified answer is; "NO"; the USA is not morally obligated to save poorly governed states.  At least not by virtue of being a world superpower nor by virtue of having the means to resolve violent conflict with powerful military.\n\nNor is it always best served to promote its' self-interest by working with an amorally neutral world organization such as the United Nations which cloys to its' own narrow ambitions and realities of global politics.  Remember, this is the same organization that put Cuba and Libya in the chairman's seat of their Human Rights Commission.  And as the Oil-for-Food scandal has shown, no less susceptible to corruption.  Generally, it is not wise to put American lives in the hands of such people (the Kuwaiti liberation, certainly being a notable exception).\n\nBut here are some hard realities...\n\nLawless states are prime breeding grounds for terrorists and extremists to grow and strengthen their organizations.  This is as true in the day of the Barbary Pirates as it is with Al Qaeda today.  Afghanistan and Iraq stand as certainties on this model.  Sudan and Somalia qualify as well.\n\nBy ignoring these situations, we do so at our peril and national self-interest and security.  It is a truism, that democratic states are more peaceful than despotic ones.  The great democracies of the world evolved from values generated during the Enlightenment which threw off the tyranny of religious and the rule of monarchs.  In general, we refer to these as Western values.  India, Japan and South Korea are "eastern" countries which have successfully embraced Western values.\n\nFor third-world peoples to overcome the plight, they must be willing to embrace Western values and willing to make great sacrifice for them.  Sending in troops can only serve to keep the peace temporarily until there is a national resolve and interest in succeeding as a nation-state. \n\nThe reality is that many small third world nations cannot expect help from the West unless it is in the national interests of their own countries.  Iraq gets focus because of oil; while Darfur suffers further.  Rwanda and the Hungarian Rebellion were great moral failings of the West and the United States.\n\nThe US can't fix everything and should focus on its' national interest and security, but it should be willing to help when others are willing to make the same moral sacrifice.
690795
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world\nThird World is a term first coined in 1952 by French demographer Alfred Sauvy to distinguish nations that aligned themselves with neither the West nor with the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War. Today, however, the term is frequently used to denote nations with a low UN Human Development Index (HDI), independent of their political status (meaning that the PRC, Russia and Mexico, all of which were very strongly aligned during the Cold War, are often termed third world). However, there is no objective definition of Third World or "Third World country" and the use of the term remains controversial. In geographical and political academia, it is almost never used, as it is seen as being out of date, colonialist, othering and inaccurate. In general, Third World countries are not as industrialized or technologically advanced as OECD countries, and therefore in academia, the more politically correct term to use is "developing nation".
595730
the ppl of asia r aware of the gr8 contrast betwween their standeard of living and the standard of living in the westren world . when they view the progress and advancement of civilization in the west they are filled with admiration ; but when they look at their own misery and backwardness they feel discontentment
495694
Greece cannot be a third world country their people are honest very hardworking and have a long history of contributions to society.  They may not have made tech contributions in modern times but have made great contributions to literature etc.  A third world country is always the result of the resources being tied up by corrupt governments.
514285
First, by eliminating corruption the plagued the government! From the local to the executive level, corruption is so rampant! If only these so called politicians have conscience, I'm sure poverty would not be a huge issue for any 3rd world country. \nAlso, people should change their own perspective in life. It's not because it has been made outside the Philippines, it has good quality. Too much brain drain happening that no society could survive for that matter.
894331
No To teh guy who answered above me .... The ranking you just gave out id outdated ... Usa, Europe, Russia, Australia, Japan, Canada .. are first world ....\n\nSecond world ..... UAE(dubai), Brazil, CHina, New Zealand, Argentina, South africa,Meico, Egypt, Israel, and few other middleeastern countries) are considered 2nd world countried...\n\nThird are mostly african .... and few others would be .. Vietrnam,.. etc and teh others.... It is a term to describe who is more economically advanced... and who is more independed..... African countries lack funds... live in poverty and they do not have any soft of technology to help them through... They are less industralised.. and fall far far behind teh rest of teh world ( 1rst and 2nd world countries) .. I hope i helped you.... ANd there is an argument wheather to say put mieastern countries as 2nd or below second and just call them "Oil Wealthy Countries" but that has changed after they became more developed... I.E dubai.(UAE) ..>> is becoming the hottest market on this planet...so advanced.. ..Maybe The New Born hongKong... Anyhow .. thast why they call aftrcan countried 3rd world >>> electricity is scarcely available there...
424686
i've been to america, met some nice people.\n\nbut looking at the country from a distance, it seems to me that lots of americans have an extreme arrogant view on the world. like they own this world, like they do good to this world.\n\nthey bring democracy to countries with bombs, they always brag about their big financial aids to the world, when the truth is that they contribute almost the lowest percentage of their national income to aid. european countries donate about 0.7 to 0.8 % , the usa only 0.25% of their national income. just bcs they have a lot of people, it sounds much money, but the european union in total donated lots and lots more.\n\nand abt bush..let me not even answer u on that. he's the devil in cowboyclothes.
865508
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world\n\nThe terms First World, Second 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 of these 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.\n\nToday, however, the term is frequently used to denote nations with a low UN Human Development Index (HDI), independent of their political status (meaning that the PRC, Russia and Cuba, all of which were very strongly aligned during the Cold War, are often termed third world).
685576
No, it is probably considered a second-world country as it's main cities are fairly developed and industrialized, however, it can not be consider a third world or a first world country.
1054517
"danieldouglas01" is quite right, although initially the First and the Second world were not numbered, they were simply referred to as Western and Eastern Block. The Third World was coined in 1952 by a French Alfred Sauvy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World)\n\nLater the Third World even created its own form of organization, when India (lead by Nerhu) and later Yugoslavia (and its leader Tito) started a non-aligned movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_of_Nonaligned_Nations)
579732
i dont think so. why would you think people in other countries and other cultures are lower than your country? based on what? money? standard of living? average population happiness level? stressfull level and divorce rate? number of criminal and prison? average disposable income? nuclear power? morale? spiritual? EQ? IQ?
28219
Hmmm...I'm going to assume that when you say "western world," you are talking about first world countries in Europe or U.S.?\n\nI think the Soviet Union is a prime example of a first world power that not only gave it a chance, but hung onto it until the system imploded.\n\nSee, communism cannot work if you have human beings in charge of other human beings.  The division of power (political, military, bureaucratic, whatever) alone causes a rift within the equality quotient that the communist philosophy is founded on.  Those who are in the position of taking advantage of their position is naturally going to take it to make life better for themselvesand their families...it's human nature.  So, you can say that the nature of being human dooms communism.