Are first world countries to blame for the bulk of third world squalor?

by tootired2care 52 Replies latest social current

  • James Brown
    James Brown

    theoretically the USA could not be a third world country.

    Because the term first world country means counties aligned with the United States.

    Second world countries are countries aligned with the soviet union.

    And third world countrys are not alligned with either.

    And are also called developing countrys.

    England is a firs world country because it is aligned with the USA not the other way around.

    A second way to look at it is the third world countries were slower to come out of the trees.

    A third and possibley most accurate way of looking at it.

    Is the first wordl countries are the decendants of alien races

    who are closer related to the primates that were on earth when the aliens arrived.

    And the third world countries were bred to be slaves by the aliens.

    Check out slave species of God by tellinger and

    zechariah zitchin and the Sumerian text.

    The epic of gilgamesh.

    The oldest known manuscripts to mankind which describe what I have just said.

    And another possibility is like the bible says we are all Gods children and created equal.

    But if you believed that?

  • tootired2care


    I would even go farther and say that industrialization was probably the biggest contributing factor to bringing people out of poverty, because it is industrialization that is a major driver for abundance. In comparison though, even the poorest American’s have historically been rich by world poverty standards. I just think it’s fascinating that countries like China and India are climbing up and life is gradually getting better for the society as whole. This is in large part owed again to industrialization and capitalism. So what is preventing other countries from doing the same?


    In answer to your OP, there are other factors, such as the difficulty of growing crops in Africa compared to Europe, which made advancement more difficult, however, we have far from helped the situation.

    So it sounds like you are saying that it is the fault of the west for not doing more, correct?

    Sending money hasn’t seemed to help, and according to this article Africa could feed the world.

    Africa’s agricultural land. According to an influential recent analysis, Africa has around 600 million hectares of uncultivated arable land, roughly 60 percent of the global total.

    Over $500 billion (U.S.) has been sent to African nations in the form of direct aid. The consensus is that the money has had little long term effect. Most of Africa's poverty can be attributed to these main things.

    • Mismanagement of land
    • Misused money on boondoggle projects and weapons instead of infrastructure
    • Disease

    Lack of cooperative infrastructure (railways between countries to transport resources effeciently etc.)

  • zeb

    Australia is a rich country but has many people who live in squalor because they have no desire to get out of it. At the same time there are some who live in state housing but as soon as they earn a bit more than some decreed level they face having to move out.

    Currently the fed govt is planning to send 'boat-people' being illegal entry people to Cambodia. That country will be paid $40 million to look after the transferees. Its anyones guess how little of the money will actually be spent on the transferees. Cambodia has refugees a plenty of its own to assist it does not need any more of completely different cultures and languages as well. Wrong wrong wrong!

  • designs

    The Bantu peoples began moving into the south African region around 1200 C.E., indigenous groups were both conquered and assimilated. Around the 1500s the europeans showed up, Portugese then Dutch English Germans. The Bantu had iron tools and weapons but were no match for the guns and canons the Europeans brought. It was not a fair or equitable meeting of cultures. The Bantu, Zulus and others were pushed off of their lands and relegated to second class citizens, if they were even considered human at all. The Christian powers from Europe dealt the cruelest dominance they could and the mines and farms and other industries were run as chatel houses.

    Conditions have begun to improve since Apartheid ended but there is a long way to go.

  • sowhatnow

    corrupt corporations corupt governments and lack of education and freedom is what makes a country disfunctional.

    we have many countries with rich soil, natural resources that would sustain the population had they been allowed to use thier own

    inteligence and land, but its taken from them by greedy controlling forces.

    the US is not above falling into the condition of a poverty stricken country. the infrastructure here is crumbling, one fire in a power plant is all it would take to leave millions without electricity, gas lines exploding from decay, flooding due to poor drainage and faulty dams, bridges not maintained, and

    a nation of people with student debt and no employment.

    where is the silver lining?

  • confusedandalone

    Yes first world nations hold a huge amount of blame for it and nearly every educated person knows this.

    First world countries went into these nations enslaved the people, took the resources and killed millions of people.

    Most Third world countries did not even receive thier independence from these nations till the 1960's.

    The rulers for many of these nations were corrupt put into place by the first world nations.

    As stated before how can you expect countrioes like the Democratic republic of congo to ever get themselves together when the disgusting figure Leopold literally killed 30 to 50% of the population and mutilated another 10% percent.

    Why even ask such a question

  • Qcmbr

    Most people who don't read history don't realise that most people are repressed by one system or another. The African tribesman for example was oppressed by the African slave trader, the tribal chiefs, constant tribal warfare and by the religious superstitions taught by the shamans. When Europe was colonising the overall benefit brought to the conquered territories was great just the same way as when the Romans conquered Britain it brought huge benefits that dwarfed any tribute extracted. There is such a lot of liberal angst among so many naive people who don't logically follow through their thinking and just blame great powers for the problems of everyone.

    No territories were virgin indigenous land that hadn't already been carved up by politics, wars, tribes , treaties and colonisation (Britain itself has been invaded, colonised, united, broken etc. by Danes, Germans, Normans, Romans, Celts etc.) . Is anyone whinging that Europe's issues stem from post Roman Empire? In fact a cursory look at the break up of the Roman Empire shows how society initially regressed in the chaos (Saxon England stopped using money and abandoned many Roman cities). There were terrible things about the Romans but the systems that they replaced and in turn replaced them were arguably much worse (if you think Roman punishment severe check out the Viking Blood Eagle.)

    When Europe colonised it didn't find idyllic societies and simply destroy them; it found cultures ruled by kings , divided and exploited (for example the Indian caste system), slavery was rampant ( especially amongst African nations - have a look at who ran those ) , the rule of law was chaotic and brutal (I was reading one commentary from the time that talked about how British colonial troops stopped the tribal practise of tying a criminal to a post , heating a metal rod and forcing them to slide down the post onto it ). If Europe had never colonised the world it is an utter lie to say they would now, and in the intervening years have been free from war, oppression and exploitation and would be first world countries. Most , without invasion and it's cultural lendings, would still be tribal even today (and I include pre Roman Britain in that.) The spread of democracy , technology, philosophy, legal thought , education and trade are what should be focused on not current wars. Countries suffering war now do so because they are socially still tribal or stratified by political religions over which Western colonisation, influence and nation building is a veneer.

    A personal lesson my mum told me from my childhood in Rhodesia. She said you could tell the African owned farms from the European because the Africans reverted to tribal farming (grazing goats or low level corn agriculture as their ancestors had done) , the women did most of the farming and in their culture the men went to the town to discuss important matters (drink and play dice normally!) The European farm would be tended, fertilised, productive (remember when Zimbabwe was Africa's breadbasket?) and would employ lots of local people. Mum said that the culture was for the men (or their wives - yes plural) to earn enough money for today and then to stop working and go spend it and that's what many did. Now wind that forward to post colonial now and those farms are all owned by the Africans, but, surprise surprise the ruling party is oppressing its people, the farms aren't productive, Zimbabwe relies on food imports and their leaders blame Britain.

    Squalor , poverty and a nations status is in the hands of its own people and it's own local leaders. Colonialism isn't this collosal force of evil as it is painted. Third world countries are third world because despite all the money, knowledge, culture and technology on offer they cling to older traditional beliefs and practices - Ebola is a salient example, spreading largely through an ignorant and superstitious population living a rural existence and suspicious of 'western' technology.

  • smiddy

    Dictators ,warlords ,etc , who want to keep their charges ignorant and in a state of poverty , and squalor is their means of keeping themselves in power .

    It has little to do with first world powers , its all about control for those who are in power of the third world countries , and they dont want to reliquish it.

    Over the decades billions of dollars have been sent to these countries in aid only to be squandered by those in charge for their own benefits and not gone to the communitys it was intended for .

    So dont blame the first world countries


  • confusedandalone

    White washed history is what prevents the truth from coming forward.

    The very fact that you mention your Rhodesia upbringing nullifies anything you say.

  • Qcmbr

    No your prejudice means you can't listen or have a dialogue confused.

Share this