5 ms·

« Why … omitting » – There was no ill intent. I saw you provided a third explanation for the term, but didn't want to analyze any deeper, so I focused on the pa

by Lumich 1mo ago

« Why … omitting » – There was no ill intent. I saw you provided a third explanation for the term, but didn't want to analyze any deeper, so I focused on the part where Sauvy fit the notion I grew up with, the only one I was familiar with (and ignored the "superstition" part of your reply). I respectfully read the Sauvy link you provided, but frankly, despite reading/listening to lots of French, I've never come across him anywhere, and I was unaware that he coined that term in French (when it may already have been coined differently in English before). Now I see that the German Wiki article has Sauvy right at the top. (Is that where you got it from?) By the way, Sauvy "repudiated" his definition in 1989 (French Wiki): Auteur de l'expression [« tiers monde »], [Sauvy] la désavoue à la fin de sa vie : « Que l'on permette au créateur de l'expression tiers-monde, il y a déjà près de quarante ans, de la répudier, tant elle fait oublier la diversité croissante des cas. Englober dans le même terme les pays d'Afrique noire et « les quatre dragons » ne peut mener bien loin. » J'espère ne plus me faire sévèrement réprimander ici pour avoir commis des « grave base failure in the mandate from the guidelines here ». :)

mdp2021 1mo ago
> a third explanation for the term There is only one, only complex, that can be rephrased at will - and which was the intention of the coiner of the expression. > I was unaware that he coined that term in French (when it may already have been coined differently in English before) [...] Is that where you got it from? I know it from Books, the good old traditional way. And not necessarily books in French: it is in the works of Paul Johnson, for example. It was not "independently coined by many" - all authors I have state that Sauvy has coined the term. > By the way, Sauvy "repudiated" his definition in 1989 Surely at some point he may have felt to retract, given that an expression coined to make a point and a good intellectual proposal - "what will be the future and the world role of those that we can now recognize as the non-aligned" - from analytical effort had become a synthetic vulgar twisted label. But the descent into vulgarity was not Sauvy's intention, and certainly there is no intent of attributing "superiority/inferiority" to the parts (as you will have seen from having read the piece on the Observateur). So again: when somebody mentions Schrödinger's cat or Hegel's cows, you cannot assume that the context be violence or discrimination against animals "as mass interpretation became at some point". You cannot attribute to the speaker unproven intentions especially if dubious, especially if frequentistic. In general; as written, here it is explicitly forbidden. For the rest, incidentally, I do agree with a tirade against the dire state of civilization in the decadent "western world", especially about the denunciation of «eunuch-like consumerist subservience» (50 years ago a conscious warning and today the token of the dead), but it was uncalled for from the post of flohofwoe. > [French language] I hope you are not falling into other assumptions.
- Lumich 1mo ago
  « You cannot attribute to the speaker unproven intentions … explicitly forbidden » As I said, I didn't intend to diss either Sauvy or you, first time I heard about this guy, and also asked some French contacts about whether he's still known in France, and the answer is « Pas la moindre idée de qui c'est ». Also, in the article you linked, which I duely read in its entirety, he does talk about hunger and misery looming over the Third World, and he laments the misallocation of funds for more war and NATO (« pacte atlantique »). The bit about the origin of the expression and Sieyès is just the final note. So I frankly don't think I insinuated (unterstellen) anything that was not in his text, and I was and am surprised for being reprimanded. If we are to assume good faith, then it must apply universally, not selectively.
  - mdp2021 1mo ago
    We are having a communication failure here. You wrote, see the emphasis, «[/]superior[/] first world» in apparent reply to member flohofwoe's «former Soviet scientists and engineers trying their luck with 3rd world despots». You wrote that «"third world", according to [some] Western definition, ... were those countries that were poor (and also perceived as primitive and culturally backwards, so the term eventually came to be seen as stigmatizing, at least with left-leaning people)». When people mention 'third world', they are assumed to mean Sauvy's frame - there is no subsequent one overriding it, it is still the reference. "Third world" means what that short piece you read proposed. Billions of people trying to bend language, concepts and culture have the weight of a hefty nuisance, not that largely opposite one of Authority. In Sauvy's frame, 'third world' has no connotation of «[infer]iority», «primitiv[ity]» «backward cultur[e]» or «stigmatiz[ation]». And «hunger and misery» are just facts relevant to the phenomenon, of course they are there, they are part of the point (they are grounds for the parallel with the "third state" near the French Revolution) - they are not appreciative nor depreciative, they are analytical. If people said "third world" as a disparaging label, it is their own fault, and you cannot assume it in instances - you can suppose it frequentistically, but you cannot point to John and take for granted that his speech yesterday meant what the laymen at the bar would have meant.
    - 1mo ago

by Lumich 1mo ago

mdp2021 1mo ago

> a third explanation for the term There is only one, only complex, that can be rephrased at will - and which was the intention of the coiner of the expression. > I was unaware that he coined that term in French (when it may already have been coined differently in English before) [...] Is that where you got it from? I know it from Books, the good old traditional way. And not necessarily books in French: it is in the works of Paul Johnson, for example. It was not "independently coined by many" - all authors I have state that Sauvy has coined the term. > By the way, Sauvy "repudiated" his definition in 1989 Surely at some point he may have felt to retract, given that an expression coined to make a point and a good intellectual proposal - "what will be the future and the world role of those that we can now recognize as the non-aligned" - from analytical effort had become a synthetic vulgar twisted label. But the descent into vulgarity was not Sauvy's intention, and certainly there is no intent of attributing "superiority/inferiority" to the parts (as you will have seen from having read the piece on the Observateur). So again: when somebody mentions Schrödinger's cat or Hegel's cows, you cannot assume that the context be violence or discrimination against animals "as mass interpretation became at some point". You cannot attribute to the speaker unproven intentions especially if dubious, especially if frequentistic. In general; as written, here it is explicitly forbidden. For the rest, incidentally, I do agree with a tirade against the dire state of civilization in the decadent "western world", especially about the denunciation of «eunuch-like consumerist subservience» (50 years ago a conscious warning and today the token of the dead), but it was uncalled for from the post of flohofwoe. > [French language] I hope you are not falling into other assumptions.

Lumich 1mo ago
« You cannot attribute to the speaker unproven intentions … explicitly forbidden » As I said, I didn't intend to diss either Sauvy or you, first time I heard about this guy, and also asked some French contacts about whether he's still known in France, and the answer is « Pas la moindre idée de qui c'est ». Also, in the article you linked, which I duely read in its entirety, he does talk about hunger and misery looming over the Third World, and he laments the misallocation of funds for more war and NATO (« pacte atlantique »). The bit about the origin of the expression and Sieyès is just the final note. So I frankly don't think I insinuated (unterstellen) anything that was not in his text, and I was and am surprised for being reprimanded. If we are to assume good faith, then it must apply universally, not selectively.
- mdp2021 1mo ago
  We are having a communication failure here. You wrote, see the emphasis, «[/]superior[/] first world» in apparent reply to member flohofwoe's «former Soviet scientists and engineers trying their luck with 3rd world despots». You wrote that «"third world", according to [some] Western definition, ... were those countries that were poor (and also perceived as primitive and culturally backwards, so the term eventually came to be seen as stigmatizing, at least with left-leaning people)». When people mention 'third world', they are assumed to mean Sauvy's frame - there is no subsequent one overriding it, it is still the reference. "Third world" means what that short piece you read proposed. Billions of people trying to bend language, concepts and culture have the weight of a hefty nuisance, not that largely opposite one of Authority. In Sauvy's frame, 'third world' has no connotation of «[infer]iority», «primitiv[ity]» «backward cultur[e]» or «stigmatiz[ation]». And «hunger and misery» are just facts relevant to the phenomenon, of course they are there, they are part of the point (they are grounds for the parallel with the "third state" near the French Revolution) - they are not appreciative nor depreciative, they are analytical. If people said "third world" as a disparaging label, it is their own fault, and you cannot assume it in instances - you can suppose it frequentistically, but you cannot point to John and take for granted that his speech yesterday meant what the laymen at the bar would have meant.
  - 1mo ago