SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
COVID-19 Has Blown Away the Myth About 'First' and 'Third' World Competence:
One of the planet's – and Africa's – deepest prejudices is being demolished by the way countries handle COVID-19.
For as long as any of us remember, everyone "knew" that "First World" countries – in effect, Western Europe and North America – were much better at providing their citizens with a good life than the poor and incapable states of the "Third World". "First World" has become shorthand for competence, sophistication and the highest political and economic standards.
[...] So we should have expected the state-of-the-art health systems of the "First World", spurred on by their aware and empowered citizens, to handle COVID-19 with relative ease, leaving the rest of the planet to endure the horror of buckling health systems and mass graves.
We have seen precisely the opposite.
[...] [Britain and the US] have ignored the threat. When they were forced to act, they sent mixed signals to citizens which encouraged many to act in ways which spread the infection. Neither did anything like the testing needed to control the virus. Both failed to equip their hospitals and health workers with the equipment they needed, triggering many avoidable deaths.
The failure was political. The US is the only rich country with no national health system. An attempt by former president Barack Obama to extend affordable care was watered down by right-wing resistance, then further gutted by the current president and his party. Britain's much-loved National Health Service has been weakened by spending cuts. Both governments failed to fight the virus in time because they had other priorities.
And yet, in Britain, the government's popularity ratings are sky high and it is expected to win the next election comfortably. The US president is behind in the polls but the contest is close enough to make his re-election a real possibility. Can there be anything more typically "Third World" than citizens supporting a government whose actions cost thousands of lives?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday May 18 2020, @07:16PM (5 children)
I don't think it was a myth at all. (For the sake of this discussion, I'm equating "third world" with "undeveloped", not the Cold-War era "nonaligned" definition.) Decades ago, the 3rd-world countries really were incompetent. That's why they were undeveloped. You can write books about why they were that way and why developed nations moved ahead so much faster, but the end effect was that first-world nations like the US, UK, Japan, Germany, etc. really were much more competent at most things than "backwards" 3rd-world countries where violence and corruption were very common.
While I haven't read the article, what the authors seem to be missing is that *things change over time*. Remember, back in the early 1800s, the UK was a global empire, and the USA was a relative primitive backwater. Sure, it had managed to fight off the British in a war of independence, but Afghanistan sure has proven to be a problem for the modern US military, and no one thinks Afghanistan is any kind of developed nation, they're just good at fighting off foreign invaders.
What's happening is that things have been changing. The US and UK are not the world-leading societies they used to be any more. The UK has been in decline for much of the 20th century and this continues today. The US is now in decline too, with standards of living falling farther and farther behind other developed nations, and also behind the standards enjoyed here by previous generations. Meanwhile, those "undeveloped" nations haven't been sitting still, content to remain backwards dens of corruption and incompetence. They've had plenty of time to learn from developed nations, and some of them have been doing just that, and improving themselves greatly. Americans seem to have this perception that those 3rd-world countries have barely changed since decades ago, but instead they've been modernizing a lot; I read somewhere that the capital of Panama, Panama City, built a new subway system in 2 years that's better in pretty much every way than the one in Washington DC.
There's a phrase that describes what the richer countries have been doing for a few decades or more: "resting on their laurels". I think there's a saying about what happens to those who do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2020, @07:48PM (1 child)
we will see what those 3rd world countries that are now "on par" will do if the prototype makers go to ground ...
i am personally super excited what a lot of asian countries are gonna do next if they cannot just cherry-pick the "good stuff" that was found thru
trial-and-error (and thus wastefully) by the so-called 1st world countries anymore.
once they have "caught up" but with no more prototype stuff made in the so-called 1st world my guess is that the old colors will show again.
also, methinks by avoiding the "wasteful" trial-and-error steps they also side stepped the "cope with the waste" part.
we will see if the "china version" of "western society" will work another 50 years (which would be a real testament to original western society blueprints).
maybe they will even transform into a cocoon and teach us how to make butterflies ^_^
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Tuesday May 19 2020, @06:49PM
China is the longest-lasting civilization in the history of the world.
You may look at them right now and think they're a bunch of 20th century communists who, through copying "the west", salvaged a functional economy out of the wreckage of a failed state. That would be a huge mistake.
The communist party is just the latest in a long series of inheritors of the Chinese national system of governance. There have been many dynasties. There will be many more. Maybe they're done with monarchy and this "democracy" concept is going to stick around as the basis for their legitimacy, but the system of government is unchanged.
China was China back when England was a distant, often deep-frozen backwater. China was China back when America was full of nomads congregating in great cities that are now archeological sites. China was China back when the whole of Europe and the Middle East still believed in overlapping pantheons of minor gods.
Maybe "the so-called 1st world countries" had a good swing at it for a few hundred years. Maybe we've even done something great and profound, and the world will forever be better for it.
But before China cherry-picked industrialization from Europe, Europe cherry-picked gunpowder from China.
Just about the only thing China did wrong was fail to recognize Europe as a competing power in the 19th century. It's understandable. Europe was a primitive backwater for 90% of the time China had been a magnificent empire. How could Europe possibly catch up?
So China got their butts kicked in the Opium War, and Europe drank their milkshake for a hundred years.
They've done a pretty good job of making up for lost time. If you think they're going to stop there, you're just as naïve as the Chinese were about Europe. You'd better wise up before they drink your milkshake.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 19 2020, @01:57PM (2 children)
The reason Afghanistan was a losing proposition is because we tried to fight a 'police action' and tried not to kill civilians (another losing policy when you can't tell the civilians from the fighters). If we'd gone at 'em like we did WW2 Germany, or perhaps WW2 Japan, there'd be nothing left but a smoking crater, and the rest of the region would be tiptoeing around us, instead of constantly poking us with sticks.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday May 19 2020, @06:28PM (1 child)
You should see how well that strategy worked for the Soviets. I guarantee you they didn't give two shits about killing civilians, and they still failed for exactly the same reason.
The problem with Afghanistan is that there are too many tribes who are too good at scheming with and against each other. WW2 Germany and Japan were cohesive nations. When we cut off their heads, their societies would have completely collapsed without ceding to the invaders. Afghanistan doesn't work like that.
I'm not sure there's any way to conquer Afghanistan without simply killing everyone. A thought against which we must all recoil in horror.
But on a practical level, I also have to ask: why? What's so great about Afghanistan anyway? It seems like the only reason anybody ever cares about invading the place is because it harbors terrorists.
It's not a new problem. Organized nations have always needed to contend with bandits living beyond their reach. Is it reasonable to think we can ever eliminate those wilds? Is that even really a good idea?
The only thing we ever should have done in Afghanistan is send a team of assassins to kill Osama bin Laden, then run the fuck away. All of this "war on terror" bullshit is and always was a costly exercise in futility.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 19 2020, @07:10PM
I vaguely recall that the Soviets wanted it for a pipeline to the Gulf oil states. Which is kind of a head-scratcher now, tho must have made sense to someone at the time.
Indeed, the only way to win a war there is too extreme for modern folk to contemplate. Why we'd want it today... well, we don't; as you say its only 'value' is as a nest of terrorists. Agreed on kill bin Laden then run away; there's nothing worth our while to fight over. Let them kill one another as they please; that's nothing new, and we can't stop it anyway. Secure the borders between them and us to keep the bandits out, kill those that refuse to respect that boundary, and that's about all you can reasonably do.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.