▲ 350 ▼ Sometimes the beauty is in the data. (mander.xyz) submitted 11 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/dataisbeautiful@mander.xyz 108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 11 months ago (1 child) You're probably right, but "was a developed nation" seems confusing it it's own way, given that the definition of "developed" is pretty starkly different across times (there is no country left in the world with infant mortality as bad as best performer US in 1900, for example). In long form, it was at the same level as familiar W.E.I.R.D countries like the US, New Zealand and France, and then later fell behind. Three worlds wasn't a great classification system when it was first devised, even. First world and second world made sense, lumping everything else into one category was pretty eurocentric and dismissive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 11 months ago Hmm. The Wikipedia article mentions a French essay as the origin of the idea. I'm not sure what you mean by this. nations either chose or didn't firmly choose a side, but lumping together all the ones that didn't choose together is categorisation. The non-aligned movement was there too but it didn't include the whole third world. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 11 months ago (1 child) You're probably right, but "was a developed nation" seems confusing it it's own way, given that the definition of "developed" is pretty starkly different across times (there is no country left in the world with infant mortality as bad as best performer US in 1900, for example). In long form, it was at the same level as familiar W.E.I.R.D countries like the US, New Zealand and France, and then later fell behind. Three worlds wasn't a great classification system when it was first devised, even. First world and second world made sense, lumping everything else into one category was pretty eurocentric and dismissive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 11 months ago Hmm. The Wikipedia article mentions a French essay as the origin of the idea. I'm not sure what you mean by this. nations either chose or didn't firmly choose a side, but lumping together all the ones that didn't choose together is categorisation. The non-aligned movement was there too but it didn't include the whole third world. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 11 months ago Hmm. The Wikipedia article mentions a French essay as the origin of the idea. I'm not sure what you mean by this. nations either chose or didn't firmly choose a side, but lumping together all the ones that didn't choose together is categorisation. The non-aligned movement was there too but it didn't include the whole third world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 11 months ago Hmm. The Wikipedia article mentions a French essay as the origin of the idea. I'm not sure what you mean by this. nations either chose or didn't firmly choose a side, but lumping together all the ones that didn't choose together is categorisation. The non-aligned movement was there too but it didn't include the whole third world. permalink fedilink source parent