Sometime last year, Gillian Tett, a Financial Times columnist described the (first world) banking system as a fragile third world city built on a fault-line. She meant it's inevitable that it would collapse. I never liked her after reading that line. Of course, her column subsequently moved to the supplement. I don't like anyone using the term Third World to describe my country. It was a poor analogy by Tett any way. Fault lines don't choose poor countries. The countries and cities choose the location without knowing that there is a fault line beneath it.
World bank chief Robert Zoellick said the term 'Third World' should be retired. The financial crisis showed us that the categorization of First and Third worlds no longer fit. Big international issues cannot be solved without the involvement of the developing countries.
I'm happy that someone initiated the retirement of the term I hate. My reason for retiring the word may not be the same as his. The term was coined to describe the countries which didn't align with US or Russia. But later it is used by people like Gillian Tett to call them poor countries. I don't know why I get offended if someone calls a poor country poor.
The English dictionary is getting better already - we added an Indian word yesterday and we are removing an offending word today.
No comments:
Post a Comment