“Third World” Is Outdated—and Dangerous: It’s Time to Change How We Speak

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I heard the term “Third World” quite a lot. I think this is one of those expressions that needs to be erased from our vocabulary, since there is only one world, and all countries belong to it. Using that term promotes discrimination and disdain toward people living in countries with fewer resources. People who continue to use it today are stuck in the past; I, for one, am done using it.

The term “Third World” originated during the Cold War. Back then, world leaders and politicians divided our planet into three groups. The First World consisted of the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western Europe, and other allies. The Second World included nations aligned with the Communist Bloc. The Third World consisted of everyone else.1 Interestingly, some countries, such as Sweden and Switzerland, were not aligned with either the First or Second World.2

Today, that term is outdated. Terms such as least developed countries (LDCs) are more appropriate—at least in political and policy contexts—so that efforts can be directed toward supporting the needs of people living in those countries. The United Nations maintains a list of least developed countries on its website, and it currently includes 44 nations.

According to the UN:

“The LDCs host about 40% of the world’s poor. Most are suffering conflict or emerging from one. LDCs account for 13% of world population but only about 1.3% of global GDP and less than 1% of global trade and FDI. Even if on the rise, still barely a fifth of the population in LDCs has access to the internet.”3

LDC is likely the right term for governmental and non-governmental organizations as they conduct their official work, but everyday people like you and me should avoid using labels altogether. We are all human beings—people who want the best for our families—so we should respect one another and see each other as equals.

As we mature and broaden our understanding over time, we need to recognize those who purposely use the term “Third World” and begin distancing ourselves from them. When we hear people use that expression, we must understand that they are not just talking about “the people from that country over there.” What they’re really saying is, “If you don’t look like me or have the resources I have, you are worthless”—and that is dangerous. It’s dangerous because they are dehumanizing people living in the least developed countries as well as those in the United States who are struggling to make a living or who don’t look like them. The same applies to leaders around the world, since discrimination and racism exist in every country to some extent.

We can do better, and we don’t need to wait for anyone else to begin making the necessary changes. Let’s start by treating our neighbors as human beings, regardless of their sociodemographic background, and by rejecting terms like “Third World.”

Change won’t happen on its own; we must take action to make it happen.

  1. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/04/372684438/if-you-shouldnt-call-it-the-third-world-what-should-you-call-it ↩︎
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World ↩︎
  3. https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/about-least-developed-countries ↩︎

64 thoughts on ““Third World” Is Outdated—and Dangerous: It’s Time to Change How We Speak”

  4. It’s come to the point in America where words are meaningless because they’ve been so misused and abused. Furthermore, where is the maturity that you talk about? It’s my opinion that humans are devolving – not evolving – and they certainly don’t behave in a mature or civilized manner. On the contrary, civilization is undergoing a massive change, and it remains to be seen how positive the change will be. As technology grows and becomes more important, humans are becoming less so, whether we want to admit it or not. I think that right now, most people are in the dark about what’s happening, and therefore, being left behind and stuck in outdated ideas. For one thing, the United Nations is one of the least competent organizations on the planet. It does little to nothing to prevent and mitigate war, which is its primary function. It has a much better track record when it comes to providing aid to countries embroiled in conflict. But the UN mostly talks, criticizes, and judges. And changing the semantics doesn’t change the underlying issue. As a side note, I will mention that I have attended workshops at the UN, and the worst food I ever ate in my life came from the UN cafeteria. The building itself is old, musty, stagnant, and outdated.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. A lot of what you’re saying is true, Dawn, especially the cafeteria comment, and NATO isn’t much better. Yes, the UN is definitely not doing much in its primary role, and I think the Security Council’s veto power has a lot to do with the lack of progress. They just veto each other’s efforts all the time.

      Like

      Reply

  8. Isn’t it fascinating how commonly we adopt terms incorrectly to use them disparagingly?

    I’d venture out to say that most people who currently use the term “Third World” don’t have Sweden in their sights.

    Where do you find yourself hearing Third World? Is it more of an older family thing (people can get set in their ways), or is it something that comes into play throughout political discourse?

    Either way, I agree that there are more appropriate terms to accurately describe the wealth-disparity phenomena across nations.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  11. It is absolutely degrading and demoralizing to categorize countries, i.e. people, that way. Great article and let’s do away with labels, yes! I wrote a poem about this topic a few years ago… 🤔 Thank you, Edward.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  13. Thanks for talking about these labels, Edward. I agree that we are one world, not divided into tiers, and especially not economically defined ones. A word I hear that is similar to Third World in its dismissiveness is “underdeveloped.” That troubles me as well. Then I heard the Developing World as a rephrasing. But that is extremely judgmental as well. My biggest problem with all these labels are they criticize areas of the world that were colonized; resources stripped, traditions and societies disrupted. So the poverty is by design of the colonizers who made themselves wealthy at their expense, not due to sloth.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I fully agree, my friend. At the root of the problem is the way the powerful exploit people and natural resources. History shows that many countries struggling today were doing fine until they were colonized.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  15. Sometimes a “label” keeps determining the “fate” of a person or a nation, far beyond what meets the eye. What’s more and what’s sad is that often those labels are intentional. Yes, it’s about time to change them in a way that benefits others. It costs nothing if one has a good heart! Loved how you ended this very insightful post: “Change won’t happen on its own; we must take action to make it happen.” It happens through us! Thank you, Edward, for keeping opening eyes and minds in a way that considers the greatest good. Much appreciated!! Infinite blessings and light your way, my friend ✨🙏

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Susana. I think it’s time we stop the “us versus them” mentality that is creating so much division and chaos and instead focus on how we can improve our world together. Labeling people is not helping, and making small changes within our own sphere of influence can take us far. Blessings, my friend. 🙏🏼

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  16. I’m very heartened, both by the message in your post and by the comments I’m seeing so far in response to it. It restores my faith that not everyone is guilty of dehumanising people who are different. I just wish more people thought like you do.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  17. This was a really important read. I appreciate how clearly you explained the history behind the term and why it carries so much weight today. Words do shape how we see others, and rethinking our language feels like a meaningful step toward respect and equality. Thank you for writing this.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  20. Well said, Edward. I agree completely, there’s only one world, and we’re all people trying to live, grow, and take care of our families. Labels like that divide more than they help. Respect and love go a long way, and change starts with us.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  21. What a powerful and thoughtful reflection. Your piece brilliantly unpacks the history behind an outdated term while exposing the subtle harm it continues to cause today. By grounding your argument in clarity, compassion, and facts, you remind us that language shapes mindset—and mindset shapes how we treat one another.

    Your call for respect, equality, and conscious change is both timely and necessary. This is not just an explanation—it’s an invitation to choose humanity over hierarchy. A concise, insightful, and deeply meaningful message.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. You’re most welcome! I’m truly glad my words connected with you.
        Thank you for sharing your thoughts so openly and for creating such meaningful conversations. It’s always a pleasure to read and respond to your reflections. 😊🌷

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  23. “We are all human beings—people who want the best for our families—so we should respect one another and see each other as equals.”

    Imagine the world we’d live in if everyone adopted that mindset, Edward! I often wonder why we can’t focus on what makes us human and what we have in common. Sadly, many in positions of economic and political power have much to gain by fuelling division.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. It is sad, and frightening too. And you’re right that no country is immune to it.

        As an example, our news this week has had several pieces on a local university professor who wants to debate the policy of Indigenous land acknowledgements at school council meetings because he thinks it somehow infringes on his human rights and he doesn’t believe he should have to say/hear something he doesn’t agree with. He feels the policy should be open for discussion and debate. I shake my head because his comments reek of privilege and racism. These acknowledgements simply state that the land we’re on was originally inhabited by the Indigenous peoples, and call us to respect the land. To me, that’s not something we can or should debate.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Incredible! We share the same issue here since both countries did the same. I’m not sure why people are so afraid of a country’s history. It’s a fact that indigenous people were here first, and we should respect that.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    1. Thank you, Brad. Big money is getting away with murder this time around. I can’t believe how much money big corporations and billionaires are sending to the current administration. Money and politics have always been a problem, but it seems that it has just gotten worse in the last six to eight months.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  26. I agree, Edward. You and I both know that there is a political divide in the perception of the people who look “different” or “other.” It is observed in the thousand of arrests and incarcerations and deportations that continue to go on with the applause and at the direction of the federal government.

    All that is well known. It is easy enough to change our language and it is a good suggestion. I do hope, however, that those who read your request and encouragement to change their language will do more. It is our responsibility as citizens.

    If we fail to act, we risk the possibility that those being incarcerated will include the rest of us.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Dr. Stein. Your closing is spot on. We need to change the way we think, speak, and act, and we definitely need to hold elected officials accountable during the next election cycle, perhaps even launching investigations into their actions while they were in office.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

Leave a comment