I’m a scientist from Kenya–not the ‘third world’ or a ‘developing country’

The top levels of Kenyan government are not doing a good job of branding the country as anything but “developing”.

Just see this serious debate about Witchcraft by their law reform commission https://www.klrc.go.ke/index.php/klrc-blog/518-justification...

It’s unfortunate, but I’m not convinced that being a “Kenyan scientist” is better than being a “scientist from a developing country”. Personal preferences, of course.

> “Third world”—as if to label my people at the bottom of the world’s pecking order?

“Third world” also includes countries like Finland and Sweden.

Also, it’s hardly untrue to suggest that Kenyan people are currently near the bottom of the world’s pecking order. This isn’t a criticism of them, just an indisputable fact.

> I expressed my discomfort with the standard terms and proposed as an alternative “areas with limited resources.”

This kind of word games don’t seem beneficial. It’s like calling a blind person “unsighted”.

It’s necessary to acknowledge the story behind “developing countries”, it’s simply an euphemism for “poor”.

Who does replacing “developing countries” with yet another euphemism benefit?

This is similar in spirit to this recent article about removing such terms from newspaper style guides and recommending not one 'modern' synonym but rather using a more specific word that is appropriate to the context.

https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2020/newsrooms-updates-...

Actually story I saw here 9 days ago was to a slightly older article with a more click airy title on the same subject:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30661633

Specific entry for developing world:

https://globalpressjournal.com/style-guide/?letter=d#term-de...

My own understanding of the 3d world idea evolved enormously as I grew older.

Started as 3d world=poor.

Then I found out there was a 1st and 2nd world, and 3th was basically everything else.

Then there came an additional, cynical connotation of not worth the bother for USA or Russia to turn that country into a vazal state. Maybe they fight some proxy wars or send some 'help'.

But now? Russia's influence is a shadow of it's past. But the USA influence is also shrinking. Look at the whole Ukraine thing. The 3rd world is not condemning Russia very loud, and even in the 1st world a lot of people look at China as a relevant player.

The fact that Russia is military having trouble in Ukraine, and the USA did not follow trough on Afganistan suggest a new world order: The whole 1/2/3th world thing is becoming a historical cold war relic, and 3d world might just become a group of neutral players in the big power struggles of the world.

I understand why this would feel frustrating to a highly educated Kenyan who may have an experience that are very different from a lot of the country and may feel like they aren't personally living a "third world" or "developing" experience.

But let's look at the facts. The per capita GDP of Kenya was $1878 in 2020 according to the world bank. There are substantial and systemic differences about that society that filter into things like the education system, scientific capabilities, and many many more less tangible things that make the realities of that country night and day different than the countries which wouldn't receive those labels.

The problem with euphamisms like "developing" is that they are designed to say that in a less offensive way but it quickly becomes commonly understood as "poor" so then you have to make up new words on ongoing basis to avoid offending anyone. But the truth is, I think that word is vare rarely used maliciously and it signifies something that is meaningfully different than the things which aren't labeled with that word.

So I get why it would be frustrating to be labeled that way but it seems that that is because there are some real, and frustrating realities underlying that situation, not because there is a problem with the word.