Member-only story
Categorizing Countries
And the ambivalence of immigrants
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine recently on what makes a “first world” country. Some people consider the term to be implicity racist. However, it originated in the late 1940s, which was both a more racist and less politically correct time than the modern era.
While I want to avoid offending, and I certainly do not want to be racist, at the same time, I’d heard differing opinions on the term made me decide to do a little research and write about the generally accepted definition.
I first heard the term when I was a child. The world was apparently divided into three parts. There was the “first world”, the “developing” countries, and the “third world”.
The type of categorization was common among the British, who divided both the natives of their own country and those they colonized according to their own standards. And they judged based on that.
Being a child born in India, there was a part of me that resented these categorizations, particularly since India was considered “third world” when I was younger.
At the same time, I can’t deny that there were reasons my parents left a country they loved to come to a country they were often ambivalent about. It’s a common characteristic among immigrants.
We come here for the greater opportunities — both in terms of economics and freedom. And we enjoy these things.
Yet for most immigrants, there is a wrenching of community ties that can be quite painful. This is true even for willing immigrants, and it can be so bad that up to 20% move back to their country of origin at some point. It was agonizing for those brought here unwillingly.
However, for those who came here willingly and those who still come today — why do they come to the United States? And why do they also immigrate (if they can) from places like China, India, Nigeria, and Honduras to places like the United Kingdom, Chile, France, Japan, Australia, South Korea, or Sweden?
