“First world” etc are political terms relating to Cold War allegiance.
What you mean is “developed country” and there are good arguments that the US has never fully fitted that label. You’d have people coming from “developing countries” to the US and realize that infrastructure and social security there is way worse than in their home country.
Yeah, exactly. First world was allied with the US. Second world was allied with the soviets. Third world was basically everyone else, and was largely considered irrelevant to the Cold War. That’s why “third world” became a signifier of undeveloped countries; If a country wasn’t part of the Cold War, it was likely because they didn’t have enough developed resources or manpower to be considered a war asset. If they were developed enough to contribute, one of the two sides would have already been working on recruiting them to the war.
“First world” etc are political terms relating to Cold War allegiance.
What you mean is “developed country” and there are good arguments that the US has never fully fitted that label. You’d have people coming from “developing countries” to the US and realize that infrastructure and social security there is way worse than in their home country.
Yeah, exactly. First world was allied with the US. Second world was allied with the soviets. Third world was basically everyone else, and was largely considered irrelevant to the Cold War. That’s why “third world” became a signifier of undeveloped countries; If a country wasn’t part of the Cold War, it was likely because they didn’t have enough developed resources or manpower to be considered a war asset. If they were developed enough to contribute, one of the two sides would have already been working on recruiting them to the war.