Reflection

One thing that seems to be quite important in any political arena is linguistics. Political thinkers tend to refer to other nations with such terms as “third-world” and other movements as “terrorism”. Sociological terms are constantly deemed unacceptable or politically correct, only to be replaced with a new “acceptable” term that will undoubtedly have it’s own expiration date. Where I take issue is the “simplistic” wording because of its purpose, it’s a summarization of a cataclysmically complex scenario. Words are an attempt to simplify a meaningful and complex matter.

The term “third-world” in itself is annoying to me. How is a nation “third world” or underdeveloped? What guidelines can one use to determine such a standing? It appears to be relative to westernization. A nation is deemed “third world” if it does not live up to the expectations or standards of the western world. This notion is in itself, in my opinion, is a step backwards. It is premodern to be so judgmental and unopen to the ideas of other cultures. Any attempt to try and consider our world as one equal playing field is moronic. Individual nations maintain certain cultural ideals over others and therefore should be respected. Who’s to say the west if the forward facing world? Why is there a need to declare a backwards and a forwards? The world is a system of trial and errors; each nation is still attempting perfection.

American revolutionaries would be considered terrorists in the modern day. It is only when you consider the entire situation that one realizes the meaning of it. The revolutionaries were fighting for freedom from tyranny in order to have a chance at something better. Therefore, individuals should be careful in there choice of words. Summarizations of movements disrespect the depth of emotion behind them.