죄송합니다!

Victoria

I’d like to begin this post with a sincere apology to anyone I may have insulted tonight by calling South Korea “second world”. I’ve been replaying that moment since I got out of class and could kick myself. In an effort to express how much incredible change the Korean senior citizens had seen in their lifetimes, I somehow decided it was a good idea to regurgitate something a prof had once told me back in my Asian Studies undergrad days about the country not having “proper plumbing” and thus being a “second world country” (not attempting to pass the buck here, as I should have done my due diligence and independently verified this, which I did not.) This was almost 10 years ago, and a quick Google search reveals that this is well and truly untrue, but for some reason, I never reconsidered this “fact” or even word choice until today.

After the class, I asked James if I had really goofed up by calling South Korea a “second world country”. He was very kind and said it was just a misunderstanding, but brought up an interesting point. The term “first/second/third world” and other similar ones like “global north/south” are extremely loaded and uncomfortable ones. According to NationsOnline.org (now defunct), around the time of the Cold War, “first world countries” were the bloc of democratic-industrial countries within the American influence sphere (ex. the US, Canada, Japan); “second world countries” were the Eastern bloc of communist-socialist states (ex. Russia, Poland, China); the “third world countries” are those not aligned with either bloc (i.e. all other nations). Interestingly, in 1974, Shuswap Chief George Manuel proposed the “fourth world”, the term referring to nations of indigenous peoples living within or across state boundaries (nation states).

Obviously, this simplistic definition is troubling linguistically. “First” will naturally imply “best”, while second and third imply increasingly lower classes, just as “global north” and “global south” do. As a result of this commonly used terminology, Saudi Arabia, a wealthy country that is neither communist nor Western, is inexplicably considered third world. “First world countries” like the States and Canada have notable issues with poverty, social justice, sexism, education, the provision of clean water, and so on. “Developing countries” seems to be the preferred nomenclature in 2019, though this still implies a hierarchy that places Western countries on a pedestal. Mead Over points out that “developing countries” are also arguably more developed in many areas, such as the social relationships between people in places where the absence of socialized safety nets leads to neighbours donating money to each other to help cover medical costs. The implication that capitalism is synonymous to “development” is a questionable one!

Long story short, I had an epiphany about the implications of loaded language this evening, so thank you to those who were listening and didn’t just let me keep rambling incorrectly. South Korea is a beautiful country that I was very glad to have the chance to visit, even if just for a weekend. I’m also glad to know that I can indeed flush toilet paper down the toilet! The hostel staff in Seoul were very adamant that I do not. For anyone interested, this article interestingly suggests out that the phenomenon most likely stems from old compatibility issues with squat toilets and a particular type of toilet paper that didn’t dissolve well. I would love to track down my old prof and link it to him so he can stop being wrong and misinforming impressionable students with his incorrect knowledge and horrid terminology!

(This is not for grading, just meant as an apology and short discussion on the sociopolitical implications of loaded phrases we tend to toss around.)