For some reason, the term “Third World” became un-PC awhile back. In my opinion, describing a nation as “developing” or “under-developed” is far more offensive by implying that industrialized Western nations are the standard for progress. These two terms also draw attention away from the fact that Third World nations are victims of the First and Second World, suggesting instead that there is something wrong with them for being slow to “develop”.

According to Wikipedia:

Third World was a reference to the Tiers État, the (Third Estate), the commoners of France before and during the French Revolution, opposed to the priests and nobles who composed the First Estate and the Second Estate. Like the third estate, wrote Sauvy, the Third World has nothing, and “wants to be something”, implying that the Third World is exploited (as was the third estate) and that its destiny is revolutionary. Moreover, it conveyed the second concept of political non-alignment with neither the industrialized Capitalist bloc nor the industrialized Communist bloc.

To “be something”, the Third World must revolt against First and Second World imperialism. Advancing beyond Third World nation status isn’t simply something they can grow out of through development. Our control must weaken for their freedom to exist.