"Nige"? You mean Farage? Where did I quote him as an expert? Do you not accept the chair of the OBR is an expert? Ok, lets accept opening a branch of a UK company in Spain is as easy as you claim (even though you use a pre-Brexit example where bank managers may have more autonomy but that doesn't make them liable for company tax and debt). Now answer the question, is it good for the UK economy if companies are deciding that trade is too difficult from here and are moving all or parts of their business offshore? Is that a Brexit win?
It wasn't a scientific meeting of experts that came up with the phrase. It was a concept first posited in an article written by a French man. Thank you for inspiring me to look more closely. The fact that it was then used in exactly the manner I described during the fall of the Empire and the rise of the Democrat Jim Crow thinking USA. I love your line about the Japanese and Koreans being delighted to be lumped in with the white supremacists. You must have missed my comments on allowing them to be alligned with the west (as per your definition), rather than being equals with us. Your line would have had some weight to it if I had not said what I did, but given that I did, your comment appears to be more of a suggestion that they should be delighted. I am happy that people will be able to see our arguments on their own merits. I think the proof of the matter was, and is, the dwindling use of the terms. It's only old fashioned people with old fashioned views about how the world is divided that use it these days. How many people would feel comfortable describing Malaysia, to a Milaysian, as being third world, and then justifying it using the criteria above? If the term is not derogatory, then why was it used on here as if to describe a helpless country being taken advantage of? Part of the problem is that people are so set in their ways, and the bigotry is so casual, that they really cannot see the issues people have with these opld fashioned phrases. Like talking about people as black and brown, when you would never do the same to their faces. Or calling a country third world, when you would never do so to a native.
It's the same situation we are in with every other country, and which every other country is in with the EU. There is nothing peculiar or unique about the situation, when you finally take the plunge and accept that we are a third party country to the EU, as voted for in the democratic Brexit referendum. Again, it comes down to whether or not people can cope with the realities of having lost a democratic vote. We all knew there would be a price to Brexit, and that the majority of benefits would be idealistic and intangible. That remainers want leavers to appologise for Brexit and explain why they didn't get the Brexit they voted against is absurd.
The usual jumbled thinking. The 'Frenchman' usually credited with suggesting the model of '3 Worlds, 1 Planet' was actually an academic demographer & he was developing a concept first employed by the UN, that bastion of white supremacist thinking. Sauvy was therefore a trained social scientist, not some rabid racist fleshing out his prejudices. His definition of the term was that it applied to those countries who were outside the 2 other main geo-political blocs; as the UN had already normalised the usage of '1st World' & '2nd World' for those power blocs, it was clearly logical to use the term '3rd World' as a descriptor for another (3rd!) group of countries. There was clearly no intent by Sauvy to use it in a perjorative sense. In fact, he explicitly stated '....this ignored, exploited, scorned Third World, like the Third Estate, wants also to become something.' Clearly the words of a raging white supremacist. Note also his direct correlation between the situation of the 20th century 'Third World' with that of the 18th century 'Third Estate' in France. Clearly a work of a right wing reactionary, then. I agree that the (already existing) use of 1st & 2nd Worlds by the UN was in itself liable to lead to less critical readers assuming there was some sort of merit-based pecking order behind them & that this bled into the later use of all these terms, including '3rd World', which in turn led to the more general assumption that '3rd World' meant 'poor & under-developed' in a perjorative sense. However, the person who first proposed that term used it in an explicitly non-perjorative way; quite the opposite in fact. Your comment 'Democrat Jim Crow' thinking means nothing as far as I can see beyond your usual need to vent your spleen at regular intervals. Being 'aligned' does not mean being 'secondary' at all. It actually means being in support or agreement with someone/something else....so UK can be said to be 'aligned' with Japan & vice-versa....no suggestion of a pecking order. Maybe you have decided to use it in a totally different way. I have already pointed out that the terms have generally been superceded now due to the negative way they have been misused & hopefully this will prevent future wilful misuse of something that was originally intended in a completely opposite manner. The blame for this misuse should be attributed to the people who decided to do so for malevolent reasons. If I said to a Malaysian that I thought the 'ignored, exploited, scorned' element of the globe in which his country found itself deserved to 'become something', then maybe he would accept that it was said in a positive & supportive manner. I would assume that an intelligent person, once it was fully explained, would accept the motivation behind the origin of the term, even if decades of misuse had now rendered it inappropriate for use. Similarly, as the origin of the term was designed to encompass the 'ignored, exploited, scorned' countries of the world, maybe that was why it was used to describe (in your words) 'a helpless country being taken advantage of.' None of this needs to be read in a perjorative manner; you have simply decided to. As for calling people 'black and brown'. My black friends are perfectly happy for me to call them 'black' to their faces, because they are black & they're proud of it. In fact they would be mightily p155ed off if I tried to call them something else. I have less friends from India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and I would accept they would not react well to being called 'brown'; after all, many of them simply aren't, so I would never use that term about them. I think it's all about trying to align myself (not in a secondary way, you notice) with how they would prefer to be called.
It was you saying that Nige was droning on about the woes of Brexit. Nige "Zero to Hero" Farage. "Perhaps you need to have a word with the likes of Farage, Mummery and Habib who, despite being Brexiters, are droning on more than most about the woes of Brexit." Your "experts" are just a handpicked collection of whatever you have found on the internet or read on twitter on that day. They are hardly balanced, every single one will be against Brexit. Anything that would be for, would be swiftly ignored and that person wouldn't be an expert, I'm sure. It's not particularly hard to find "experts" with the opposite views online is it ? Your experts suit your narrative. You kind of make your own arguments up in your head regardless of what is being talked about, I presume it is something you do on purpose. The Hobbyist was saying he lost his business as under Brexit, as he couldn't operate in Spain. I have proved that it is possible to run a business in Spain without being resident there. Whether that is good for the UK Economy I don't know, I was talking about him. Last time I was in Spain I filled up at a BP garage, that not good for the UK either then? I'm sure they managed to open a Spanish office. Whatever I say, you will twist back and forth in your head if it doesn't show your black and white version of Brexit as the correct one, and then to try and provide an argument that Brexit was bad. Everything is as a whole, nothing is individual. I'm in business, a director of a few companies and have been for over 30 years, I work for no one and success or failure depends on my decisions and I don't see the picture you try to paint. But because you stick some links up to tell me how bad Brexit is, I'm supposed to ignore what I see day to day and just blindly follow an "expert". I may be right, I may be wrong, either way, I'll adapt and roll on.
There’s no surer sign of an argument going nowhere than when the writer has to tell everyone about his directorships. It’ll be your first class degree in life next. You’ve been on this thread for a couple of pages and so far you’ve been unable to say any benefit of Brexit. You just bang on about everyone else’s personality, ignore what they say and indulge in petty prejudices about small businesses in sectors you are not interested in. Try not to be a bore.
So. We agree that it is an outmoded term that has consistently been used to refer derogatively to certain countries. It has taken a long time, and we may not agree exactly on its origins, but at least we can agree on that. I still find it a touch unfortunate, particularly given our agreement on the implications we now understand from the use of the term, that it was used to describe Malaysia on this forum. But even that is tempered by the fact that the person who said it, liked the post in which you made it clear that the term is one that has been misused abusively to describe some countries. I still disagree with you, regarding there being an element of bigotry even in its intended use. First, second, third? If that is not putting people in their place, what is. Why can't the 'third world" be the first world? Because the predominantly white first world woukd get on its high horse and kick up a fuss about being described as such. Pretty words around a subject do not impress me. Thd actual words used, and the way they are used (that is, the common parlance) tells you the truth of the matter. And I don't think there is a single person on this forum, including you, that believes the use of third world is not a way to describe an underdeveloped backwards country. That is why I do not use it. That is my opinion. Oh. I call my friends and colleagues by their name. the 100 strong department I work in is predominantly made up of minorities. We talk about their experiences, and families and everything, and I don't think I have ever referred to any of them, or their families, by the colour of their skin, except for one Superintendent who loves to identify people that way, and has a very particular sense of humour based on identities. He would have made a mint on the 1970s comedy circuit. We even discuss racism without mention of anyone's colour. Perhaps using the word black to describe someone is the legacy thing I described it as, but we are just so used to saying it, and those it is said to are so used to being called it, that it is just accepted. If so, that is a point I was wanting to make. If you do not define a person by the colour of their skin, racism becomes redundant, and hatred and bigotry become recognised (and tackled) for what they are. Not saying that is how you are, just extrapolating on a thought. Perhaps I am some sort of innocent that just doesn't get the race\identitarian thing either way, and that is why I see things differently to you and the other poster.
This poster has said several times he is a successful company executive, so I am afraid that I have to completely agree with him on this occasion.
So I never said Farage was and expert or a hero. You complained about people whining about Brexit. I merely pointed out that perhaps you should address that complaint to those that are whining the most, including Farage. I'm not whining about Brexit at all. I'm merely pointing out the issues it is causing. You prefer to deny they even exist or come up with nonsense to justify it. That's fine. But thankfully we don't live in Russia so the rest of us can discuss what is really happening. If you actually want to discuss Brexit rather than just try to shut people up then feel free to join in. You could start with the tangible benefits of Brexit. And what relevance does your career have? There are plenty of directors and business owners out there who are idiots.
Thought we'd ascertained that the argument ended six years ago? Like Monty Python in here, not sure if it's the "is this the room for an argument?", "The Dead Parrott" or "what have the Romans ever done for Us?" Pity they never did a blowing smoke up each others arses one, be more relevant. As I said earlier on, I couldn't give two hoots about Politics, I am here to poke people with a stick. Solely because they are still crying six years on and it amuses me. And since you two are so serious and the hobbyist is sulking, it's become boring. As you were.
I said in my initial post the terminology carried the potential for inappropriate misuse & so had been largely superceded, so it has not 'taken a long time', but we do agree. Why can't the 'third world' be the 'first'? That is plain simply by taking a look at the categorisation of the post WW2 geo-political structure as employed in the model as it was initially used by the UN. It is important to clarify that the UN approach was predicated upon the existing geo-political reality of two diametrically-opposed groups of economically-developed countries. '(predominantly western) developed capitalist democracies' = '1st World' because they were the entities that existed first! There were no 'communist ideology opposition' to such entities until after the Russian Revolution of 1917; indeed, until that time, some of the countries that became 'communist = 2nd world' countries were themselves 'capitalist democracies' in some shape or form, ie, the same as '1st world' countries. So, the 'developed capitalist democracy' form of government existed first; the 'communist-ideology opposition' to that form of governance came into existence second; both categories were to be understood as sufficiently economically developed to have a significant impact upon world order & peace. Obviously, the majority of countries in the world fell into neither category as they were not sufficiently developed; this is the group that Sauvy designated 'Third World' alongside his clear statement that they desired a better deal. The crux is that in the second half of the 1940s, not surprisingly, world peace was at the centre of everyone's thoughts; it was why the UN was created anyway. From the UN's perspective, who could threaten the hope of world peace? The economically-developed countries who constituted the two posturing, opposing power blocs they designated 'first' and 'second' world. You may want to read racist bigotry into it, but I think that's because you are viewing it through the prism of subsequent misappropriated usage. Just because it became used in a certain way does not mean that was the way it was intended to be used. I still agree it was an unfortunate shorthand to have chosen. Alongside 'Global North' & 'Global South' we also now have 'less developed countries' instead of '3rd world'....I wonder how inhabitants of those countries view that term. (I'm making no point here; just wondering). 'The way words are used' changes all the time in a dynamic, living language, which is why I always try to ascertain a frame of reference of definition before entering into a discussion. 'What definition does the other person have in mind when using a specific term' is not an act of sophistry; it is fundamental to logical debate. The meaning in current common parlance of a term may bear little resemblance to a previous common meaning. (For example earlier & current usages of the word 'nice'). It is not reasonable to project back a word's current meaning onto a previous meaning. There are no such absolutes, so I am not using 'pretty words' against any 'current common parlance'. I also call my friends by their names; the fact that the ones who have black skin pigmentation are happy & proud to also be called black in certain circumstances is neither here nor there. I have a Scottish friend who is happy to be called 'Jock'....in fact he introduces himself as that as he prefers it to his given name & he's very keen to stress his Scottishness. Is that an indicator of racism or bigotry? Is it wrong to attempt to explain who someone is to someone else who doesn't know them well by saying 'he's the tall, lanky, bald bloke'? If there were two tall, lanky, bald blokes of differing skin pigmentations, would it be wrong to distinguish one from the other by saying 'he's the tall, lanky, bald, white bloke'? People look different and other people naturally use differences in appearance to differentiate between them. What matters is that you should not use terms that you know the other person will find distasteful or distressing...and many of those terms have nothing to do with race or skin pigmentation. It's not all black & white (excuse the pun).
I’ve explained why Brexit is still relevant. No one is talking about the vote, but about the consequences. I don’t remember anyone saying that if Leave won it could never be mentioned again. It seems like the only one throwing their toys out of the pram is you because people are freely giving an opinion your delicate ears can’t bear to hear. Yes, we’ll survive Brexit thanks very much. Has it been any use? No and you know that. Has it helped the poor and left behind or the already had it alls? You know the answer, you are just not ready to admit it.
Cracking stuff. I appreciate the work you have put into your response. However, in the original article, by Alfred Sauvy, that coined the terminology, he derives or likens the "third world" to/from the "third estate" (a collective name for the commoners of the French Revolution): "This third world ignored, exploited, despised like the third estate also wants to be something." Clearly he is defining these countries as ones considered 'less than' by those in the first and second worlds, for who else is it that would ignore, exploit and despise them? I am not saying that was his opinion of those countries, but he is certainly saying it is the general opinion of the first and second worlds. So although I appreciate everything you have written, I do also consider that, whether deliberate or not, the adoption of "third world" also carried with it the knowing understanding that these countries were not simply being given a handy label, they were also being picked out as other and lesser. I also believe the terminology itself invites such a belief, for the reasons I have mentioned previously, and that it was inevitable that the term would be used and taken in a derogatory way, because the countries it was used to describe were, by definition, unsofisticated and undeveloped, or, rather, commoners. As a light weight oik, I take that almost personally It doesn't change my opinion of the poster's use of the term, and I'll accept it wasn't your intention to persuade me otherwise.
All good, but let’s not be fooled. HH’s only interest here is in calling me a bigot. It’s the thinnest of gruel. I referred to Global Britain exploiting the Third World. Malaysia may not be part of that, it may not be a very useful term either, but the workers exploited in Malaysia are almost all migrants from much poorer countries, the World’s poorest Countries. That is exploiting the poorest, the underdeveloped or Third World. This exploitation appears not to offend HH, this Brexiteer exploitation. This is not his reason for a protracted debate with you. He just wants to defend Brexit by calling his opponents bigots. And that’s why no one speaks with him.
Yes, I do want to point out to you the racist and bigoted language you use. Why wouldn't I want to do that? You would if I did it, and have, indeed, attempted to do so when I didn't. You are fully aware that I hate racism, and you have frequently purported to be an anti racist yourself. So why wouldn't I bring up apparent hypocrissy on the subject. You always have the opportunity to defend yoursel, or recognise that you crossed a line. But instead, you usually double down, and criticise me for challenging you. You frequently call out racism where it doesn't exist, to criticise those who disagree with you. Yet you have never been able to point to any use I have made of such language. I am afraid it is entirely appropriate to call out casual racism reflected in the words people use, and to highlight old fashioned views about the world that have all but been forgotten, because forgotten is the best thing for them. You described Malaysia as a third world country in order to make Britain seem like a bully, due to one of Dyson's sub contactors being accused of harassment, or some such, of employees. As if no third world country would have treated one of their own in such a way. So it was, I believe, pertinent to point out that your accusations of racism and bigotry to people of a disadvantaged background, had been described in a manner that is widely recognised now as being unsavoury, and which any antifa or BLM activist would tell you was steeped in the language of white supremacy. Don't trust me on that. Phone up your local Labour party, ask to speak to their diversity manager, and tell them you still think third world is an appropriate phrase to use when talking about 'other' countries, let alone Malaysia. Mind you, with Labour's record on race, and the propensity for the common Labour supporter, on here at least, to use such language, perhaps I shouldn't expect too much.
Appreciate what you're saying & why. I now tend to let most of his posts pass me by, but just occasionally, I decide I cannot let something to go without reply. Ironically, our current discourse started with him commenting on a 'point of info' post I had submitted, a post not even addressed to anyone. No doubt it's a mix of my in-built pedantry and the effects of some quite rigorous academic training that I tend to automatically try to clearly define frames of reference within which different people may be employing apparently 'identical' terms. That can lead to extended debate, but once started, I'd rather that then not 'bottom out' the issue; not just with HH, but with anyone. I also have decided never to put anyone on 'ignore'; I find it preferable to read whatever anyone says and then decide whether to ignore or not. Maybe I would take a different view if I found certain posters raised my blood pressure, but fortunately that's not the case. But each to their own solution.
Fair enough. My original post really was a 'point of info' post with no judgmental stance implied. Remember, I am very committed to trying to establish what people actually mean by the terms they use, as very often the 'same' term is understood very differently by different people.
I think a lot people will agree with his sentiments. The key thing is why he saw it as so important he would throw money and a social media war towards it. Simply because he wants the people of Ukraine or Belarus or anywhere else not to have the choice we had and to remain under Russian influence. Brexit was a way to weaken the EU and hopefully precipitate collapse, though the EU looks even more united now. But the behaviour of the Russian state, the aggression, the shooting down airliners, the poisonings in Russia and abroad, they just drive Countries towards the EU and NATO.
This can’t be right, according to some posters on here the reaction to Ukraine just demonstrates what a good thing it is that we are out.
Yes, I'm not arguing that the referendum result shouldn't have been respected. But Putin playing the democracy card when he thought his Brexit might be threatened by a second referendum is revealing. Surely even the most ardent Brexiter must ask themselves why he cared so much? As you say, his investment in Brexit was an attempt to weaken the EU and the west in general. The irony is that EU unity has now been strengthened by this invasion and Brexit. Only the UK has been weakened on the world stage by this act of self harm. Surely everyone can see that now.
The claims in the post above are misleading and frankly preposterous. He makes no indication whether he is either for or against Brexit. All he does is say that a referendum was held, and that according to our democratic policies, it should be honoured. What is wrong with that? Where is his bias in that? You voted for it, you allowed the vote for it, eat it up. What would any other world leader have said if asked what they thought should happen, regarding a decision made by democratic vote? This is a redundant argument that yet again appears to be a case of people desperately reaching for ways to demonise Brexit. Sorry, but it is quite pathetic.
Are you trying to make the point that Putin wasn’t delighted at Brexit?! I think even the most arduous Brexiteers that I know think he would have at least relished in the short term disruption and disagreements caused by the leave vote, even if they think we’d prove him (and the rest of the naysayers) wrong.
NO. I am not. I am pointing out that all he said in that video, hyped by the OP as showing why Putin was "so keen to fund/help those behind it", was that a democratic decision had been made and should be honoured. Go on. Show me I am wrong. Then show me where I said he wasn't/shouldn't be delighted by Brexit. Where exactly do these Russia-Brexit Conspiricy Hoaxers believe Russia influenced the UK public? What could Russian money have brought to the table that wasn't already on the table? The only influence that appeared to be tactically created out of nothing was project fear, which stank far more of interference than any campaign to leave. Do you think the Russians paid for the Bus ad? Do you think a couple of extra thousand made any campaigners argument more convincing. How absurd. And why shouldn't Putin be delighted by Brexit? I was. Many other people in many other countries, some of them members of the EU, were also delighted. And why should we be concerned that Putin may be delighted by Brexit? Why should we be concerned that the EU's beligerent behaviour, creating a toxic Brexit, weakened their position in the eyes of Putin? With his Russian economy that is only the fifth largest in Europe, behind Germany, The UK, France and Italy - an economy not much more than 1/10 of the EU 27. There are other powers with far greater infiltration into the UK's political, corporate and media institutions, who have made far greater contributions, both fiscal and tactical, to attempts, at first, to prevent a referendum, then to ensure a referendum would 'go the right way', then to have the referendum ignored, then to have the referendum re-done, then to weaken the UKs bargaining powers by taking away our most powerful bargaining chips, then to poison people's view of Brexit, then to poison people's perceptions of what Brexiters were voting for, then to smear Brexiters as racists and xenophobes, and now to influence a return to the EU fold, by funding, in the UK, pro EU lobby groups, school advisories and EU promotional offices and businesses, as well as influencing and providing funds for political campaigns. If you are concerned that there is undue, and frankly intangible, influence on the UK from Russia, then why do you think the EU's wholesale and entirely tangible influence on the UK is not a problem? And if it is not, then why should anyone take what you say seriously, when you are prepared to accept one foreign party's influence, why should you complain of another. Don't make the mistake of thinking the EU are not a foreign power. They are. Just like Russia. And as far as I am concerned, their attentions are no more welcome than Putin's. If people are predisposed to EU influences, for their own reason, I have no problem with that. But I will point it our for what it is, when they then complain about other third parties having an interest in our business. The UK isn't here to stop the EU making itself look weak (because of their own response to Brexit) in front of minor powers with relatively piffling economies. If Putin is delighted by Brexit, it is not simply because we are leaving. It is because of the EU's adverse reaction to us leaving, making the Union look like one of Woosters outraged maiden aunts in a fit of pique after Bertie breezed off to New York. If Brexit made Europe weaker, as opposed to the EU, it is because the EU wanted it so, to teach us a lesson; Putin knows that and relishes it. He knows the EU's common sense is no match for its hubris.
I think Putin's sponsoring of brexit may have massively backfired. Can you imagine the sanctions regime being put in place so quickly If we were still there dragging our feet and stalling for time for the oligarchs? Or trying to get unanimity on visa waivers if we were in there mithering about fake Ukrainians.
I don't see why. He is an odious little man who has been shown to be a bully. That doesn't mean he's wrong about Brexit or in his assessment of Johnson's personality. There were unpleasant people on both sides of the Brexit debate. Indeed no side of politics has the monopoly on disgusting characters. It doesn't make their political views wrong though does it?
What exactly qualifies Patel to hold one of the great offices of state in the UK? I know the cabinet has to be selected from a swamp of third rate Brexit apologists, but she has to be the most inept of all of them. I doubt she would have made PPS in Mrs T's day......
She doesn’t quite beat Gavin (Frank Spencer) Williamson to the much coveted prize of thickest plank Boris has ever promoted, but fair play, she gives it a good go. But your phrase swamp of third rate Brexit apologists essentially sums it all up.
