[aravindet]

The terms Global South and North have been around since the 1960s, and they denote the country's socioeconomic position, not geographic location. It's jargon used by organizations working on developmental economics, and as with any jargon it is more precisely defined than "poor country".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_Sout...

While it's jargon, I'd have thought it was a fairly common and well understood jargon. Even if you haven't encountered these terms before, I'm not sure why you find them offensive. Are you opposed to fields of study adopting jargon to aid communication?

[tivert]

> The terms Global South and North have been around since the 1960s, and they denote the country's socioeconomic position, not geographic location. It's jargon used by organizations working on developmental economics, and as with any jargon it is more precisely defined than "poor country".

To me, the jargon term "Global South" seems inferior to in all respects to the much more common term "3rd World." Whatever minor confusion is caused by the latter term's origin in Cold War geopolitics [1], is far less than the obvious prejudice and nonsense baked into the former [2].

[1] 3rd world pretty much means poor now, and no one's going to be tripped up by its original meaning of "non-aligned."

[2] Australia and New Zealand are in the South, Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia are in the North. Is the former populated by poors and latter rich, wealthy and developed?

[yareal]

To you, sure, the term is not as useful. But to the people involved in academia and politics, the jargon is useful.

You can keep using words you prefer, language is adaptable like that. But the jargon used in those circles developed for a reason, which may not be obvious to those outside or who don't follow as closely.

And yes, Cold War geopolitics and confusion around non aligned were a factor in the evolution of the language here. First world implies something about the relationship with the U.S. even to this day. The Cold War wasn't that long ago, and the political alliances haven't drifted that much since then. An old first world country like Chile might also be developing.

[tivert]

> To you, sure, the term is not as useful. But to the people involved in academia and politics, the jargon is useful.

In what way exactly is "Global South" more useful than "3rd World" to "people involved in academia and politics"?

Sometimes jargon is necessary, but sometimes it's just fashion.

Also, in no way is jargon fixed. If I recall correctly, hundreds of bird species are slated to be officially renamed for political reasons. And just look at how many jargon terms there have been "in academia and politics" for Americans descended from Africans: negro, black, African-American, Black, etc. I see no good reason why a foolish term like "Global South" can't be abolished as well, for reasons of clarity.

[yareal]

I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's not the same as "developing" or "third world". It's a set of countries with a unique set of characteristics that happen to mostly fall into the south. If you've got a better name, I'm sure folks would love to hear one.

[rayiner]

My dad works in international development. Our thanksgivings were 95% USAID people and the like. I never ran across the term until recently. Your link confirms that it’s not technical jargon, but rather a political activist euphemism that’s crossed over only recently:

> Carl Oglesby used the term "global south" in 1969, writing in Catholic journal Commonweal in a special issue on the Vietnam War. Oglesby argued that centuries of northern "dominance over the global south […] [has] converged […] to produce an intolerable social order.” … It appeared in fewer than two dozen publications in 2004, but in hundreds of publications by 2013.

> Are you opposed to fields of study adopting jargon to aid communication?

“LDC” is jargon, established for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_developed_countries. It’s precise and connotes the thing it’s talking about: economic development. “Global south” is an activist trick to take a neutral economic label and inject the notion of political struggle between geographic areas.