When I first got into Argentina, it was to Bariloche with all the argie tourists that flock there over summer in their SUVs and spend copious amounts of money on chocolates and all the other fine things Bariloche had to offer. The argies were easy to spot - they were the most well-dressed, and the most sophisticated people there (but against a pack of smelly backpackers, the Elephant Man would be charming).
I knew that Bariloche was a hot spot for the domestic tourist, looking to escape for the summer, but the sheer numbers and ... suaveness, I guess, suprised me. It was obvious that this wasn't a true representation of a even cross-section of society here, but when the argies are at their finest, it's certainly damn fine.
While the two other cities I stayed in Argentina, and the others that I visited, certainly didn't display such obvious tourism and wealth - they felt more like cities and towns back home: just places where people lived, comfortably if not well - they were miles above what I saw in Peru and (especially) Bolivia. And they didn't display any of the indifference that Bolivian towns did - these were towns and cities that their inhabitants were proud of.
So more or less this time last week, I was sitting at dinner with Pablo, and we'd been catching up over what had been happening to us over the past 4 years, and talking about all sorts of things, and then Pablo asks me about my trip:
"So what's it like visiting a Third World country like Argentina?"
Beg pardon?
"Third world? I don't think I'd call it that, hardly!" I reply. I'm more than aware that Argentines are a little bit low in global self-esteem since their economy collapsed in late 2001/early 2002. That was the week when I met Pablo in Berlin, and while I don't know specific details, I know that it left them with quite a different place in world society. Before, Argentina was too expensive for foreigners and it was the Argentines who travelled overseas. Now, it's the other way around - witness the hordes in Bariloche.
The next twenty minutes we spend arguing over why Argentina is, or is not, a Third World Country. And why Australia, the US and most of Europe apparently aren't. Pablo argues that there are lots of people that live in shanty towns outside of the federal capital.
"Sure," I reply, "but there are Americans that live in ghettos, and the US wouldn't classify as 3rd World. And there are outback communities in Australia that certainly wouldn't classify as First World."
So how do you define what is First World and Third World (and whatever happened to Second World?). I know that there is a high illiteracy rate in the US, that there is no such thing as public healthcare, and that there is a substantial amount of the population that live, if not below, then certainly on the poverty line. And this is a superpower!
I use this example not to crucify the American system (which I do happen to disagree with), but as an example because I suspect that all First World countries have some sort of inequality in their system which favours the well-off, but hides those less fortunate. So, to get back to my question, what is First World, and why is Argentina defined as Third World (by who, exactly? By First World Countries who don't want others to join the club?).
Looking into this using wikipedia, and it gives a history of the terms and (I realise that this isn't the best source) - First and Second World came out of the Western-Soviet blocs that happened after WWII, with Third World developing to describe countries that were neither allied with the Western powers or the Soviets. Now, the term is used to denote economical status, rather than political stance.
So there's been a bastardization of the term. Ok, fair enough. Meanings change. But the perception that I've encountered among Americans - those from the North and the South - is that the whole of South America is Third World (and I mean in the economical sense), and lacks infrastructure as well as an economy. Why this upsets me is because it's blantantly not true. Sure, there are parts of South America that desparately need infrastructure, and lack basic necessities that should be freely available to all people. But by no stretch would I say that Argentina and Chile belong in the same category as Bolivia. (Sorry Bolivia, but you have a way to go yet. You know this, and I wish you the best. You know I do).
But, thinking about it further, I think that to say that a country is completely First World or completely Third World is missing something. I've now seen countries that I would classify as mostly Third World, as I've seen countries that I would now classify as mostly First World.
In future, I think the word mostly should be obligitory.
The next night, walking along a posh street in one of the nicer districts of Buenos Aires, we see a line of fairly nicely dressed people waiting outside a door.
"They're waiting for food, " Pablo says.
"How nice, " I think. "Must be a good restaurant."
Turns out they're waiting for the leftovers that a bakery is about to throw out.
He made his point. Mostly.
5 comments:
ahh... how I would have loved to be at that discussion. We have to visit zellinis' upon your return and continue the conversation.
Personally I don't have as much of a problem with inequality as I do with the hypocracy of such status claims. After all they are based on a measuring stick devised by our society, to congratualte ourselves on how much a good job we are doing. A bit like getting a star in primary school, for a project on "Industrial Revolution".
I must say, I'm beginning to accept the gross inequality which exists universally within the first, second and third world countries. Not out of apathy, but the purpose it seems to serve. That an ofcourse the realization that things change very quickly when its time for them to change.
ps - happy belated birthday :)
that there is inequality and it exists universally - I accept (would prefer that it wasn't so extreme though). My point though was that I disagree with the branding of a country as First, Second or Third. Fullstop. I think when countries seem to brand themselves First World, they stop looking to improve themselves and assist the less-fortunate members of society (*cough* USA *cough*).
But - un pregunta, Avishkar - what would you define "the purpose" that this inequality, this gross inequality, seems to serve, exactly?
ps thanks :)
well given that definitions of third, second and first are fairly subjective and do not really any metrics related to them (i.e. an economy of particular size, GDP, etc.) I can only see these terms as being marketing terms and thus the associated lack of depth to these terms. On the other hand if we were to take these terms and relate them to metrics then we could have the disucssion regarding which category the country falls into decisively.
There was an interesting sign I came across in Malayasia. Basically it said they had an initiative to be considered a first world country by 2010, and I remember thinking what exactly did they mean by that. And it quite clearly highlighted to me the marketing nature of the terms. But in this case there might be some benefit to aspiring to being able to branded as first world. I would say that the flip side of wanting to be branded first world means that you actually have to get to a certain state of economy, education as well and maintain that to some extent. However I agree with you that the use of "mostly" is probably a good thing. I prefer the third world countries being referred to as developing countries though. I think it gives a more accurate description of where these countries stand. Not to mention the disparity of wealth in the group of countries that are considered third world i.e. some african countries versus China, India.
> I must say, I'm beginning to accept the gross inequality which exists universally within the first, second and third world countries.
Umm what exactly do you mean by accept?
yeh indeed what do you consider "the purpose" of such inequality. Though to some extent I am glad they are not on the same level of consumption as first world countries. I can only begin to imagine the damage to the environment when they do get started. If India and China ever get around to consuming at that same scale there are going to be some serious repurcussions to environmental sustainability.
Happy Birthday Jarv.
Going to have to do something when you get back.
Nav
PS: Got your ticket to The Great Escape
Purpose of inequality in a one-word-marketing world is "Change" :)
If we are to interpret purpose of inequality of wealth in terms of what is CAN lead to, then the purpose of inequality is to bring about change. Unequal distribution of wealth on the basis of the effort, skill, talents and abilities of individual is something I completely agree with. It is the essential cornerstone to the ideals of capitalisms, which mind you are grossly abused. Nonetheless they have fairness about them.
So unequal distribution of wealth is in fact an incentive for some people to work harder, smarter, etc. Thereby an incentive for the poor nations to work to bridge that gap. India and China for example, encourage nationalist pride in regaining, what they believe is, their original status in the world (i.e. a world leader). They believe this because of their own rich history culturally and financially.
The gross unequal distribution of wealth leads to far more dramatic changes in forms of revolutions. It's often violent and aggressive means to redistribute the wealth in our society. We don't like the idea of revolutions, and to get to that stage often takes a long time. But that is exactly what happens. French, Russian and countless South American revolutions happened with the ideals of making things more equal and fair.
There is no guarantee the change will be positive. But it will bring about a change. :)
Oh dear: I'm sorry Avishkar, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.
1. So unequal distribution of wealth is in fact an incentive for some people to work harder, smarter, etc. Thereby an incentive for the poor nations to work to bridge that gap. India and China for example, encourage nationalist pride in regaining, what they believe is, their original status in the world (i.e. a world leader). They believe this because of their own rich history culturally and financially.
I agree with this ... again, to an extent. However, would you agree or disagree that say, a developing country (like Nav, I prefer this term too), can look upon the inequality between them and a developed country, where the citizens don't lack access to education and a supply of food and water, and think "my, if only we tried a little harder..". I agree with your comments, as far as they go, with respect to China and India, who have the capacity to turn their status around; however, I disagree, as I think that your comment ignores countries that lack even the capacity to do this.
2. The gross unequal distribution of wealth leads to far more dramatic changes in forms of revolutions. It's often violent and aggressive means to redistribute the wealth in our society. We don't like the idea of revolutions, and to get to that stage often takes a long time. But that is exactly what happens. French, Russian and countless South American revolutions happened with the ideals of making things more equal and fair.
Yes, but look at other revolutions too. There have been revolutions in Sth American and African nations that were unsuccessful (and should probably be called political coup than revolutions) that haven't served to change the state of the people because they were performed by opportunistic would-be political leaders, rather than "the people". And while we're on the topic, remember that the French and certainly the Russian revolutions didn't magically redistribute the wealth of the nation overnight - Russia still seems to suffer, no?
One thing that I've been doing a lot here is playing card games (it's one way to pass the time, after the crappy movies on the bus) - there's a game that I've learnt where each player has a status, and at the beginning of each round, players can swap cards, but the players with higher rank get to change cards at the benefit of those with lower rank. It's an interesting game, because if you're disadvantaged, it makes it more difficult to improve your rank. Kinda like real life.
Post a Comment