Australia is not the global south because everything here is upside down, including Australia.
@JCSchytt8 ай бұрын
I Think you are referring to austria
@Yawnymcsnore8 ай бұрын
No it's because they aren't savages
@mtaufiqn50408 ай бұрын
Live with wildlife make them savager@@Yawnymcsnore
@socialistrepublicofvietnam15008 ай бұрын
We are the richest country in the Northern Hemisphere 😎😎😎🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
@skipper25948 ай бұрын
@Ndres16928 ай бұрын
The other thing that shapes the global south “sentiment “ on modern issues is that the “cold war” was boiling hot in the south.
@Jeremyisthings8 ай бұрын
This feels really significant and something that should lead us to use a different term for the Cold War; it would make it feel like a lot more than just posturing.
@sergeykish8 ай бұрын
North Korea still occupied by regime set by Moscow. Everyone would prefer to live in South Korea that was protected by West so why "global south" don't support West?
@DrVictorVasconcelos8 ай бұрын
80 coup and coup attempts initiated by the US. (Often with the explicit goal of stopping the creation of state companies with a monopoly around oil, which was considered "communism".)
@bukhariapdelahi70728 ай бұрын
Global South just means "the enemy of the West" as the west sees it, it is always the west that have names of others they always sating new words to describe Africa and Asia and south America, it used to be 3rd world now it is global south
@eternaldrunk8 ай бұрын
there wasn't a single conflict that wasn't instigated by the u.s@@Coglio
@s9ka9728 ай бұрын
In *1961* : India was non aligned with Superpowers In *2023* : India is super aligned with both super powers , with UN IMF Quad and G20 with US & with Brics and Sco with Russia & China . Basically India had and have only one objective - Reap best of both the worlds .
@pranavingale68508 ай бұрын
Fair agenda
@pax68338 ай бұрын
tbh I can kind of respect it. But I don't think India's neutrality will be maintainable in the future. China seems to keep wanting to up the ante in geopolitical confrontations with India, and its links with Russia are basically irrelevant now since Russia is no longer an arms exporter and US abandoned supporting its longtime rival Pakistan. I don't see India and US becoming allied or anything, but it seems like they are in a quasi limbo where their interests might coincide in the future.
@westrim8 ай бұрын
Hasn't really worked for them so far.
@s9ka9728 ай бұрын
@@westrim Can't say that . India always wanted to remove Pakistan from both its sides . They really take help of USSR during 1971 war with Pakistan and liberated Bangladesh.
@westrim8 ай бұрын
@@s9ka972 You're talking about military matters, I'm talking about economic matters.
@Adan119618 ай бұрын
I love that they included Antartica
@joao-batista8 ай бұрын
because this therm is meaningless
@magnusgranskau74878 ай бұрын
well its white enough to be included
@useodyseeorbitchute94508 ай бұрын
@@magnusgranskau7487 Due to all those research stations it should be continent with highest average IQ...
@MadsBoldingMusic8 ай бұрын
In this multipolar world order, Pengu has to assert his sovereignty somehow
@duran96648 ай бұрын
😡 STOP the manipulation 😡This is a racist alliance 😡 👉Global South = non-whites
@darkflighter1008 ай бұрын
As a geography teacher, I find the increasing proliferation of the Brandt Line and the "Global South" term to be troubling as it is incredibly outdated and simplistic.
@fajaradi12238 ай бұрын
Don't worry bro. We don't take them as derogatory terms. Either Global south, third world countries, under development, under developed, etc. In fact, our government has abused it to demand aid from your country.
@kth67368 ай бұрын
You shoild worry. But not because its simplistic. 😂😂
@LividLobster8 ай бұрын
It’s the favourite buzzword of polisci 101 students who can’t wait to lecture you about how bad white people are and how all these places are only poor because of colonialism, imperialism, racism other isms etc
@oliviastratton21698 ай бұрын
Agreed. At least "Third World" was based in political alignment (kind of like "Allied"/"Axis"/"Neutral" during WWII). "Global South" just feels like a fancy way to say "the barbarians" or "the colonies". A way to lump together everyone that's not part of the "civilized" club.
@NihongoWakannai8 ай бұрын
@@oliviastratton2169 at least we could use something like "developing countries" or something that is actually descriptive. Instead people say "global south" which is just complete nonsense and means nothing. It just feels so disingenuous to say a term so vague, it makes it feel like they're trying to hide their intentions instead of just saying what they mean.
@ayushkumar-bg1xf8 ай бұрын
anti colonialism is what common among all global south countries , which westerners hate
@bernardvc58208 ай бұрын
You're aware that there are quite a few countries in the 'global south' that have histories -and long ones too- of being colonizers?
@SrCoxas8 ай бұрын
@@bernardvc5820 irrelevant, people are not talking about medieval empires of 1000 years ago, they are talking about the european colonialism of 100 years go which still has consequences in the world today. How many countries of the south did something similar? Perhabs Turkey and Thailand, no one else
@diogorodrigues7478 ай бұрын
@@SrCoxas That thing about European colonialism still having an influence today is just a thing used by local politicians to blame others for their own faults, decades have passed and Sub-Saharan Africa is still incredibily poor. Also that exuse doesn't explain why many countries in Latin America are still poor. By the way, why don't you criticize the fact that Russia and China are doing colonialism not 100 years ago but today? Because Europe has mostly left, probably with the exception of France in Western Africa (but even that influence is waning recently).
@diogorodrigues7478 ай бұрын
@@SrCoxas *How many countries of the south did something similar?* India, Indonesia, Thailand, Turkey, Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa, most of Northern African and Middle Eastern countries, Myanmar... On top of those previously mentioned, all Latin American countries have a strong colonial basis. Spain and Portugal left the region in the 19th century but the ones that ended up ruling the new independent lands were not the indigenous peoples (which were, back then, the majority of the population) but the white colonizers, which basically cleaned most of the indigenous populations in countries such as Argentina or Brazil.
@ctmme7 ай бұрын
Yeah that's cope from shit hole countries lol. They were shit hole before, they're shit hole after.
@zenleonor94408 ай бұрын
People are confused this not a geographical term but a political
@aariyanmahmud3018 ай бұрын
ikr this should be common sense
@freedomfighter222228 ай бұрын
What is the political definition and what purpose does it serve then?
@NihongoWakannai8 ай бұрын
Then why are you using a literal geographic term? It's stupid af. If you aren't referring to geography don't use a geographic word.
@mikexhotmail4 ай бұрын
@@freedomfighter22222 Country which have been living under colonialism. To get rid their master influence once and for all.
@thecomment94892 ай бұрын
@@freedomfighter22222 It serves the purpose that the Global North means those countries who are vassal colonies of the regime in the White House. Global South are countries not the vassal states of the regime in the White House.
@robertl45228 ай бұрын
The real, global south, is the friends we made along the way!
@mohammed44_8 ай бұрын
*Enemies**
@ryannathaniel92968 ай бұрын
@@mohammed44_*friends with benefits
@mohammed44_8 ай бұрын
@@ryannathaniel9296 I'm from the global south, saudi arabia, I know they hate us and call us terrorists. If they generalize all of us as terrorists, why don't we generalize all of them as colonizers?
@l2qz7118 ай бұрын
the shitholes where we shit all the time!
@l2qz7118 ай бұрын
@@mohammed44_ too pathetic to be enemies lol
@KawaTony19648 ай бұрын
I think one very important difference between the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961 and the "Global South" today is this: in 1961, India heavily favored the Soviet Union over the West; today, India is strongly opposed to China and therefore somewhat favors the West, although not as strongly as they favored the Soviet Union in 1961.
@rizkyadiyanto79228 ай бұрын
non-alignment by definition doesnt support soviet union.
@corey54248 ай бұрын
Soviet union and modern day China are incomparable.
@freneticness69278 ай бұрын
@@rizkyadiyanto7922But india was a democracy in the commonwealth so was never going to be a part of the soviet block or the second world.
@vinniechan8 ай бұрын
India favours only India The only question is who offers them the best deal
@KawaTony19648 ай бұрын
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 I know that, but you can't honestly deny that throughout the Cold War, India favored the Soviet Union over the West. Just look at the weapons they procured.
@Superman-ig6zb8 ай бұрын
Damn Jaishankar has really become famous globally
@Heisenberg-028 ай бұрын
Ikr!!! We got an amazing EAM. Not just this particular interview but the way he just articulates and slaps words in the journalists face in every interview is so fun to watch. People have started realising western hypocrisy more because of him.
@Ammmssk8 ай бұрын
I’m from Chile and I truly believe this idea of northern and southern globe is extremely dumb
@Evan490BC8 ай бұрын
I would classify Chile as part of the Global North, economically and politically.
@eliasaguilar85808 ай бұрын
Got love Chileans self hating is an art there
@Evan490BC8 ай бұрын
@sg23148 Yes, I know.
@ericktellez76322 ай бұрын
@@Evan490BCNo one would do that and they shouldn’t. Economically Chile is still poorer in terms of individual citizens compared to the poorest countries in Western Europe and actual gdp or economy Chile is not rich at all, politically makes even less sense because all the other countries in Latin America with just two exceptions have the same social democratic, bourgeoisie elections.
@DrVictorVasconcelos8 ай бұрын
Well, basically, people ruined "third-world country" by using it to mean "poor" rather than "unaligned", so now they're looking for something else. Still, it's not as helpful as it looks. In the UN, many "northern" countries in Europe vote as much with Brazil and South Africa as they do with the US.
@Wfalen8 ай бұрын
There is no such thing as a global south or global north. Moldova is poorer than Chile. Spain is more pro-palestine than Papua. India is more Anti-China than most EU members etc. Only way is to recognize that each country has their own agenda and needs.
@cablefeed37388 ай бұрын
Global South is real. it's the half of the planet below the equator.
@MasterGhostf8 ай бұрын
Agreed. Every country has its own wants and needs. "Global south" ignores that because its politically convenient for certain individuals.
@ArturoSubutex8 ай бұрын
The fact that there is a lot of heterogeneity in the so-called "Global South", and the fact that the concept is relatively poorly defined, doesn't mean that it flat out doesn't exist. Ukraine and Gaza are two instances where a country belonging to the "West" or "Global South" strongly correlates with its overall attitude. Western countries overall tend to be less pro-Palestine, and a lot more anti-Russia, than Global South countries. The existence of outliers doesn't invalidate the existence of an overall trend.
@dan-bz7dz8 ай бұрын
The Moldovan president is a typical US and EU puppet. Not a part of the global south
@Dave1026938 ай бұрын
@sg23148100%
@ivandinsmore62178 ай бұрын
The Global South is basically the Third World. The west is the First World. The Soviet Bloc was the Second World, and the rest was the Third World. Now that the Soviet Bloc no longer exists these terms don't make sense any more.
@asurrealistworld44127 ай бұрын
The Soviet Bloc doesn't have to still exist for nations today to still be influenced and governed by its ideological framework. This includes China and is the reason it's not actually part of the Global South though it seems some like to pretend it is.
@TheAmericanPrometheus8 ай бұрын
The term "Global South" has always rubbed me the wrong way, especially since we're often told that it is more 'politically correct' to use that term instead of 'the third world'. China is a developed country in all but name, and Russia has the economy of your average third world country, yet the latter is included in the global north and the former in the global south...
@blackman71868 ай бұрын
This comment is so retarted. Dude, have you seen china? It's definitely a developed country not just in name. And Russia I believe is in the top ten economies, how's that 'average third world?'
@youtindia8 ай бұрын
Let's face it. It's white vs non white.
@SS-eu2ef8 ай бұрын
@@youtindiaexactlyyy it’s always been about differentiating ourselves from the white ppl; the global south is basically a part of the world that is tired of western hypocrisy and rhetoric setting aside how developed or undeveloped they are
@zolandia52628 ай бұрын
China's not a developed country by any measure. Russia and China are part of the Global East
@FOLIPE8 ай бұрын
China isn't a developed economy yet
@robertn29518 ай бұрын
It is pretty ridiculous to consider the Gulf States, Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia, or even Thailand, Costa Rica, and Chile as "part of the South", while certain laces in the Balkans, Siberia, and Tajikistan being "part of the North". Compare West Virginia to Rwanda and you would be surprised who fares better.
@shzarmai8 ай бұрын
exactly
@davidmesen23228 ай бұрын
Couldn't agree more
@Dave1026938 ай бұрын
Agreed
@FOLIPE8 ай бұрын
Chile and Costa Rica aren't rich, central countries. It makes all sense in the world to put them as global south which is where they belong
@jc3drums9168 ай бұрын
Inclusion of Tajikistan, et al. might be because the definition arose when they were all part of the USSR.
@AngelSonevski8 ай бұрын
It basically just means "not part of the western NATO/EU order" at this point, so it includes most of the world besides the US/Canada/Western and some of central Europe/Japan/S Korea/Oceania
@serebii6668 ай бұрын
Even your definition fails to recognize the fact that countries like Brazil, Turkey, Mexico, Morroco are all firmly pro-US or within the Western sphere, NATO or EU or otherwise. Your definition looks like it is just re-hashing Developing vs Developed economies.
@Patrick-y4d1z8 ай бұрын
@@serebii666 Not to mention countries like Australia and New Zealand.
@AngelSonevski8 ай бұрын
@@serebii666 None of the countries you listed are firmly pro US
@AngelSonevski8 ай бұрын
@@Patrick-y4d1z Also that is what Oceania is
@serebii6668 ай бұрын
@@AngelSonevski Brazil was in 2019 granted the title of major non-NATO ally, and countries both have multiple agreements on defense, trade and research cooperation. Morroco is the longest unbroken treaty relationship in U.S. history, including buying their military equipment from the US, like F-16s, and Turkey is literally in military alliance with the US - NATO, duh, and Mexico is literally in the US's own trading bloc and the great benefactor of nearshoring. All of these countries are firmly pro-US.
@nicholasharvey12328 ай бұрын
The term "Global South" to me just sounds like a contrived euphemism for the developing world (a term which itself is a bit of a euphemism). It's still a bit of an over-generalization, as many people in Chile, Argentina, South Africa, Namibia, Malaysia, and Singapore are doing quite well.
@second2none9148 ай бұрын
‘Global south’ is contrived but ‘Third world’ isn’t?
@Omega-mr1jg8 ай бұрын
I wouldnt say argentina
@MrMaxinne8 ай бұрын
Argentina LMFAO
@nicholasharvey12328 ай бұрын
Well not everyone in South Africa is doing well either but they're still thought of as a fairly developed country. Yes Argentina has had more than its share of economic problems but it's far better developed than, say, Peru or Bolivia. The Philippines has a pretty decent economy for an equatorial country but it is quite unequal and nobody can call it a truly developed country. Farther to the north is Taiwan, well below the Brandt line but can be more argued to be a developed country. To say nothing of HK but that isn't (yet) a sovereign state. As I said before, it's generalizing a bit much to say that colder, more northern countries are richer than warmer, southern countries. I mean, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, and Mongolia aren't exactly seen as power players on the global stage.
@FizzyGajing8 ай бұрын
I was sort of on board with you until you mentioned Argentina. Heck, even South Africa is currently in a crisis.
@celiajames6008 ай бұрын
Global South Countries understand themselves as countries that are anti colonialism. As they have been victims of western colonialism, imperialism or oppression. The unity is in helping each other out of that.
@floydwhatchacallit68238 ай бұрын
That doesn't work as a definition because it includes European colonial societies that still oppress the indigenous population. Such as Argentina, Chile, or Brazil. Indonesia is still waging a war against indigenous groups. They've committed many atrocities over the decades in their conquest of Papua. Botswana joined the British empire willingly and managed not to suffer any real consequences from it.
@michaelhalsall56848 ай бұрын
Thailand was never a European colony. but is still included in this group.
@mikexhotmail4 ай бұрын
@@michaelhalsall5684 Thailand sacrificed their territory to avoid that. ps. I guess you knew that but wanted to twist the story.
@champan2508 ай бұрын
Global South is where outside of the US and Europe's definition of the "world"
@Froge08 ай бұрын
The map in the thumbnail basically looks like the Peter Griffin colour chart
@MarcusLangbart8 ай бұрын
yep basically the story of colonialism.
@Aspartame698 ай бұрын
@@MarcusLangbart Is that the colonisation that brought modern life to the iron age people of africa?
@louis-marieokolo418 ай бұрын
Underrated comment 😂 Here, have a like 🤣
@saurML8 ай бұрын
@@Aspartame69 oh look a colonial sympathiser
@goganii8 ай бұрын
@@Aspartame69 you know there are other ways to modernize than being brutally repressed and having your territory used solely for resource extraction, right ? the infrastructure built in the colonies were either to facilitate the transportation and extraction of resources, or to better the quality of life of the colonists (schools, hospitals, etc for the colonists). the loss of life of millions (for example in the DRC) isn't a cost that we can compare to gained infrastructure
@socialistrepublicofvietnam15008 ай бұрын
4:43 yemen isnt in africa, bruh
@bababababababa61248 ай бұрын
Yeah he should have said 13 as Kiribati and Yemen aren’t African. Although Yemen does have territory in Africa as they own Socotra
@yewenyi8 ай бұрын
Whoever decided that Australia is part of the north clearly failed school geography.
@HShango8 ай бұрын
@sg231481000 percent, Americans are crap at geography
@zenleonor94408 ай бұрын
It’s a political term not geographical
@l2qz7118 ай бұрын
The West stands for democracy, freedom, and wealth. The East is dictatorship, authoritarianism, nationalism, and slavery. The South is poverty, terrorism, famine, barbarism.
@priceprice_baby8 ай бұрын
@@zenleonor9440a stupid political term. If you use a compass bearing it should be geographical. "The West" is also dumb
@caydcrow51618 ай бұрын
@@priceprice_babyRead histories lol it will make more sense
@templetonpatrick8 ай бұрын
It's a meaningless, unthoughtful term. There's no definition that can rationalize putting the UK and Moldova in one bucket while putting the UAE and Bangladesh in another. Don't take anyone who uses the term as if it means something seriously.
@Vitor.S.8 ай бұрын
you’re right
@Tmb11128 ай бұрын
White, Christian, European countries that aren't aligned with the EU but are generally close to the EU on many issues and could potentially join it (or rejoin it) in coming years. Both are countries who border the EU and have strained relations with Russia while supporting Ukraine. Oh no, so different! Or for your other pairing: how could we possibly group together two Muslim countries both part of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation. Both staunchly anti-Israel and pro Gaza. Both were former British colonies/protectorates. And both left colonialism behind to try and make it on their own, with UAE being more successful so far. You can find differences between those countries just as easily as I can find similarities. But that doesn't change the fact that those similarities are there. The terms do mean something, because they have as much meaning as people attribute to them. If people see those similarities as enough to unite together, then the grouping DOES matter. Ignoring it doesn't make it not so. The fact that there's a G77+China of the Global South, but the Global North doesn't make a group in response is foolish. We like to look at it though as if there is no divide between Global North and Global South, even if people in the Global South see it that way. Instead, we have the G20 which includes many of those southern members but only a few of the northern members. No big grouping of only the Global North exists. And maybe that's something we need to rectify.
@Ravi9A8 ай бұрын
correction. You can't find the meaning, and you can't glean the thought.
@dan-bz7dz8 ай бұрын
You're a mindless drone. That's why you don't understand it
@kth67368 ай бұрын
Lol. Seperate those 4 countries into x-tian and muslim countries amd youll see. How stupid. 😂😂
@jumbomuffin13168 ай бұрын
4 of the 5 UN permanent members are northern countries and China is a dictatorship that not a lot of countries fully want to support. The entire point of the global south is to give smaller countries in Africa or countries like Mexico, Indonesia, etc etc., a voice. 4 UN members are literally allied and expect countries to either support or go against. When was the last time the north truly cared about wars or anything in Africa, but as soon as Ukraine gets attacked, northern countries demanded stopping trade with Russia.
@sanexpreso29447 ай бұрын
There are 3, China and Russia are the other two permanent members
@jameslongstaff27628 ай бұрын
As an American, a lot of the countries in the "global south" have plenty of rich people. So is a global south country defined by income inequality? Since income inequality in the US is widening, is there a point where the US joins 5hr "global south"?
@kth67368 ай бұрын
It is basically countries that support us hegemony vs those that dont. But that line is too simplistic because places like israel Nd liberia etc. fall below that line.
@eduardomarques918 ай бұрын
Let's face it, it's just about race and US hegemony.
@mjr_schneider8 ай бұрын
The map of the Global North should really include South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, seeing as they're basically on the same level of development and alignment with the West as Japan. But I guess it would be harder to draw a simple line around them, which is kind of the problem with the whole concept.
@gosnooky8 ай бұрын
So, it's pretty much the more palatable version of the term "third world."
@ARUchannel18 ай бұрын
it is a synonym
@berzerius8 ай бұрын
Only because it was turned into a slur. Rebranding had to be done
@TheAmericanPrometheus8 ай бұрын
@@berzerius I'd argue the term "global south" is more 'racist' as it connects poorer countries with a certain geography, and it just so happens that the so-called "global north" are almost exclusively white countries (plus S. Korea and Japan).
@l2qz7118 ай бұрын
@@TheAmericanPrometheus The North has always been far superior than the South in human history. The Northerners are conquerers, innovators, adventurers and the Southerners serve as their slaves. The Vikings from Scandinavia almost effortlessly conquered and established themselves as rulers of EU while the Manchu/Mongolians enslaved all of Asia and established the biggest empires.
@berzerius8 ай бұрын
@@TheAmericanPrometheus the third world only wanted non alignment. Nothing else. It was countries like the US who turned it into an insult. Why is global south racist now? Any group of non aligned countries is racist?
@blackman71868 ай бұрын
There are multiple versions of 'Global South' One is the indian version where China isn't included, in other one china is included and a completely different one consisting of only weak and poor countries that suffer the most from global conflicts and general issues.
@TheSpiritombsableye8 ай бұрын
[Makes confused Korea noises]
@talideon8 ай бұрын
I'm sure South Korea just loves where that line's been placed.
@doriangray27498 ай бұрын
We were familiar with Turkey not being Europe but now it is not northern wtf 😒
@Diplomastronaut8 ай бұрын
Someone should write an academic paper defining this term
@spaghettiisyummy.36238 ай бұрын
Yes! :D
@whanua988 ай бұрын
this term is actually hold ppl back from development.
@Ggdivhjkjl8 ай бұрын
Plenty already exist. The term has been in use for decades.
@oktabramantio47098 ай бұрын
I believe that the definition is already used by many people, just not universally agreed to have a single definition
@vijaz55598 ай бұрын
@@whanua98good 😂😂 i still want my commission, iphones, and shoe to be cheap
@ภูมิสิทธิสมวงศ์8 ай бұрын
Thank you so much. I think the term does not make sense and has a mild discriminatory meaning. As a Thai, I learned that Thailand/Siam was not colonized because of diplomacy with multiple European powers, instead of only the UK and France, which occasionally collaborate to take advantage of other nations. I guess the "Global South" nations also have the same idea.
@fuliajulia8 ай бұрын
I’m in my second and final year of a masters in (American) Southern Studies, and it’s interesting to see the “Global South” defined as a political term vs an academic term. I strongly associate it with “new” movements in critical studies, where it typically refers to the geography of historically colonized, extracted from areas. The name is intentionally vague-the “global” in global south indicates the ambiguity. Whereas America is a “developed country,” areas such as the Mississippi Delta experience economic and historical conditions that arguably align more with “developing countries” and could be considered pockets of the global south in the global north. It’s not a term I use in my work, but I understand its value in the academic context.
@daryehl59108 ай бұрын
They have to consider: history aspects, ethnical traits, and also culture. Not only economics. There are some countries like Chile and Singapore both are faily developed but they aren't considered amongst the G8(because they're not anglo-saxon based *Japan being the only excession*). And there are poor european countries(mostly from East Europe) that are not considered because they share similar historic and cultural traits with West Europe. The problem is that Western academics are eurocentric, and this is something they deny.
@0xCAFEF00D8 ай бұрын
It's just a polticial tool to imply a northern cabal against poorer countries. Works excellently for leaders of poor countries to dodge their share of accountability. That said I absolutely agree with the idea of limiting the scope of a Sino-American conflict by keeping countries non-aligned.
@TheKinky4ever8 ай бұрын
What do you mean idea? It was a proper organisation that was created to do that.
@oldskoolmusicnostalgia8 ай бұрын
The cabal exists, it's called the IMF, World Bank, WTO and UN. All those "international institutions" which are ultimately controlled by the USA and a few of its allies.
@angliccivilization13468 ай бұрын
Trying to lump Ibero-American countries in with subSahel African countries, Arab countries, India, and Southwest Asia all into one bloc like they have some shared views is just a frivolous over simplifcation of reality.
@loganfaucher8 ай бұрын
IR researcher here. I focus mostly on IR theory and I have to say that the nomenclature of a "global south" is complete nonsense. It does nothing to accentuate the nuances involved in national development, and further deprives those interested in IR of a more direct, useful term that has been used even longer: the developing world.
@babangteo28538 ай бұрын
Global South is easy to be understood. It's only the continuation of Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung on 1955. Those who push these and also South-South Cooperation and also Global South are instead, big economies like Indonesia and Communist China.
@buffgarfield32318 ай бұрын
It feels weird to include Turkey when Constantinople was the center of western civilization for so long.
@0xCAFEF00D8 ай бұрын
These oversimplifications never had any hope to live for centuries. They can't even live for decades.
@spaghettiisyummy.36238 ай бұрын
Plus, Turkey is a NATO member.
@jamessloven22048 ай бұрын
@@KaanBeskardesas someone who studies history, will Turkey really be ready to go against Russia alone? Constantinople/Istanbul has been the jewel in their eye for literal centuries.
@aland.90608 ай бұрын
Because it is weird. Imagine Turkey being south while Spain is north? Turkey is northern then Spain and some of south Italy. Definitely wealthier than balkans and some eastern european countries. Also member of Nato and so on. This whole idea is more like whom western europeans wants to see themselves with, which explains the situation.
@aland.90608 ай бұрын
@@jamessloven2204Turkey didn't fall even when they were weakest position in their history so I highly doubt that it will fall to someone else in 21th century. Especially to Russians, excluding their nuclear capability, there's not really much they can do against Turks. As long as nato provides nuclear deterrence for them.
@MinorLife108 ай бұрын
Never overestimate a political organization that includes both China and India
@kunalsinghal12477 ай бұрын
You will be surprised to know China and India support each other and work together when required efficiently. It's just that the government of both are in some imaginary race with each other which is turned ugly.
@ZMO9998 ай бұрын
The racist line
@nowhere5296 ай бұрын
Australia and New Zealand literally Further South than most Nations considered Global South, more Orwellian tripe from the ruling class.
@paul1979uk20008 ай бұрын
The problem I find with a lot of these groups around the world is that there's very little holding them together and not much in common with each other, to make it worse is the lack of investment in those groups to make them work more effectively, political, economically or both. Because of this, a lot of them kinda feel like a talking shop with very little clout to do anything meaningful. The African Union is a prime example of that, it's modelled on the EU, yet it basically lets any African country join with little in the way of rules, reforms needed or incentive to candidates to want to reform, unlike the EU where there's a rule book as long as your arm that countries that want to join have to reform on, both politically and economically, that creates a common tie whiles also creates real change, the AU just lets them all in and that gives little incentive in getting real change for the better. If these other groups really want more clout around the world, they have to get back to basics and work on the foundations, unfortunately, that takes a lot of time and effort as the EU has shown, but it can also deliver a much bigger voice for its members, that can happen with these others but without getting back to basics and building the foundations, they feel like a talking shop with little in the way of power.
@_UCS_SwapnilSahaiSrivastav8 ай бұрын
Brics on the other hand has a lot of power, perhaps now as group since there are a lot of disagreement but the individual countries in the group will be one of the strongest countries in this century. So not only talking shop but also with real power and influence
@kaihang46858 ай бұрын
The reason why it matters is because being part of the "global south" means having our political agency removed. People in the English-speaking internet who normally champion for the oppressed, the little guy in their own countries in the Global North suddenly telling us what's best for us. So either this label of splitting the world into Global North and South is outdated, or implications and condescending-ness of the Global North needs to stop.
@ianshaver89548 ай бұрын
These are not geographical, but instead political terms. First, you have the Global West. It includes both Eastern and Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, North America, and even Australia. As a bloc, it has most of the world’s food surplus, almost all of the world’s rich, stable democracies, and over half of the world’s financial resources. It is technologically advanced, but drastically under militarized, and could expand its military capability by at least an order of magnitude if its democratically elected leaders were willing to cut deep into the population’s standard of living to do so. Next, we have the East. These are authoritarian states who want more power, more authority, and more land. What they lack in money, technology, and efficient government they try to make up for with a much higher risk tolerance and a much greater percentage of resources spent on the military. Unlike the current global west or the former Soviet bloc, the East has no regulator, telling its own members who they can and can’t invade. Moscow and Tehran don’t take their orders from Beijing, contrary to popular belief. Finally, we have the global south. They want the economic benefits of trading with both East and West, without siding with either. Whether they will get this is an open question. The Global South has most of the world’s fragile countries, with corrupt governments, weak resilience to change, and shallow financial resources. If we have a food shortage, these are the countries that starve, and if we have an oil shortage, these are the countries that go without. Note: GDP per capita is a statistic thrown off by commodity exporters. Being rich like Saudi Arabia and being rich like Japan are two very different things.
@travisfubu90538 ай бұрын
"stable democracies" lmao
@josephrion35148 ай бұрын
I think you've done well to explain a few things.
@pottertheavenger13638 ай бұрын
That's a stupid and racist take on the world that isn't white or rich. The West also includes Latam, even if gringos don't like it so. The East is a nebulous term for a foreign culture outside of the European one, including Japan. The Global South... is even worse than 'Third World.' It lumps a bunch of different countries and peoples of different developments and governments.
@cocofriday47008 ай бұрын
You also need to include the USA and ally as the one who wants more power and authority 😂.
@VictorPerez-vu1fo8 ай бұрын
@@pottertheavenger1363 I get why you're angry but his explanation does have some credit to it. Reading it and at a general view of how certain countries behave and their current social political status it does check out. Under this specific description, LATAM is not part of the global west he mentions, yes it is influenced in western culture but he's not talking about that, he's talking about specific conditions that relate to international relations among different states. In most instances the global south would depend higher on it's exports over it's imports meaning they will have the resources to cover their needs most of the time while feeding the consumer market found in countries that depend higher on imports over their exportation of good. (Basically Europe, Japan and the US being prime importers of just about everything, while their trade partners having a significant portion of their exports be focused on these markets and dependant on "good" interactions. NAFTA and it's love child come to mind as a good example).
@octavianpopescu47768 ай бұрын
Ok, this was funny. I like how as an Eastern European someone thought to place us in the wealthy North part, which is... generous of them. It's definitely an optimistic take. Now don't tell me I'm also part of the West. 😀
@oktabramantio47098 ай бұрын
On the global stage, any European country is considered as "wealthy" and "west" even the eastern europe.
@octavianpopescu47768 ай бұрын
@@oktabramantio4709 I'm surprised, because those of us who were on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain see ourselves more like... Japan or South Korea, allies of the West, but not culturally part of it. In fact, I'd say even the West is divided into the European West and the Anglo-American West. Culturally, Brits and Americans seem like their own thing.
@MeeesterBond178 ай бұрын
@@octavianpopescu4776 Tell that to the Welsh, Scots and Irish. 😂
@octavianpopescu47768 ай бұрын
@@MeeesterBond17 True... Let's then call them Anglo-Americans.
@MeeesterBond178 ай бұрын
@@octavianpopescu4776 Oh, but it gets even more complicated than that. I've worked with engineers from Michigan who talk about people from the Bible Belt as if they're from a different planet. People from Liverpool or Newcastle often speak with accents that London residents simply can't understand. My own sister had to imitate a US accent in Florida for a waitress to take her order (we grew up in the north of England) I can understand it all looking the same until people get close, as I thought the same about Germany once. But "The Anglosphere" is not a unified mass by any means.
@jalen76908 ай бұрын
I’m actually American and feel like I relate more to the global south. Those big wigs in Washington and New York probably think of some of us here the same way.
@maximusmckellar6608 ай бұрын
I always thought it meant that global south is nations that are south of the equator but I guess that me.
@tobypettit64178 ай бұрын
I know I'm being a nerd, but how are Turkmenistan/Kazakhstan north of the Brandt line?
@assfghjkl8 ай бұрын
Bc we arent as poor
@assfghjkl8 ай бұрын
Stan suffix doesn't necessarily mean we drink directly from rivers and shower under rain
@Briggsian8 ай бұрын
I prefer the term "majority world", since it represents a loosely aligned group of nations that make up the vast majority of people.
@FabledCity8 ай бұрын
I've always thought global south has been in fashion as "third world" and the worlds theory faded out as dated 20th century speak. Like the "Arab street" or the "inner city", the global south is far more a grand oversimplification than a well defined geography.
@matteoricci91298 ай бұрын
And you interpreted Falkland Islands as Malvines, so you gave them up to Argentina
@pustakarileks74048 ай бұрын
Who categorized it to becomes global south?
@bulletflight8 ай бұрын
Is Singapore part of the global south?
@paulheydarian12818 ай бұрын
Both are too small to matter.
@user-jt3dw6vv4x8 ай бұрын
No it's not because it's a high income nation.
@user-jt3dw6vv4x8 ай бұрын
@@paulheydarian1281 Shows how little you know of the country 💀
@paulheydarian12818 ай бұрын
@@user-jt3dw6vv4x Singapore and Hong Kong are propped up by Wealthy Chinese. However, they're both highly artificial, small constructs. They're too small to have a manufacturing & agricultural base, and are heavily dependent on imports.
@user-jt3dw6vv4x8 ай бұрын
@@paulheydarian1281 Firstly, Singapore is inhabited by Singaporeans (Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians). Wealthy Chinese people did not just come to Singapore and create Singapore, the whole island was poor and its non-native inhabitants (Chinese and Indians) were poor too until Singapore became independent and Lee Kuan Yew transformed the country. There is nothing artificial about Singapore and it's not a "construct". Singapore (like Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan) is an Asian Tiger and rapidly developed through harnessing its geographic position at the end of the Strait of Malacca to create the world's busiest cargo seaport and its economy grew rapidly by becoming a manufacturing and financial hub. It exports electronics and machinery and is a financial services hub in Asia. Just because Singapore depends on imports, how does that change anything about Singapore's transformation? It is the only country to transform from a developing to developed nation in one generation. Sorry but you really should fact check before speaking.
@enric-x8 ай бұрын
The notion of Global South is just a rhetorical instrument; it’s a bad one, since it is a reiteration of the cliche “us versus them “
@st.altair49368 ай бұрын
I've always understood it as any nation outside the Imperial core (North America, EU, Japan, and Australia) that wasn't a part of the USSR.
@alt1f48 ай бұрын
What?
@st.altair49368 ай бұрын
@@alt1f4 What? I'm referring to what I understand as the Global South; the topic of this video.
@hatman34458 ай бұрын
What Imperial Core? are we in 19th century?
@st.altair49368 ай бұрын
@@hatman3445 You can just look it up lol. Referring to nations that have profited from colonizing other countries in the past, and are currently benefiting from developing nations though unequal exchange and keeping their labor and resources cheap by keeping them unstable through coups and wars.
@doublethink69478 ай бұрын
Western Imperial core
@lukejs3182Ай бұрын
I love how the map excludes Australia and New Zealand (because Europeans settled there and made it rich)
@bloodfiredrake72598 ай бұрын
As someone from the global south (specifically Pakistan) I like seeing unity like this. I am tired of western hegemony causing atrocity after atrocity in my part of the world.
@pablosskates70678 ай бұрын
So you partnered with the CCP. Good luck with that.
@pablosskates70678 ай бұрын
@sg23148 say what, wumao?
@useodyseeorbitchute94508 ай бұрын
Your unity with India and Iran is going to be interesting to watch in the West...
@varun22508 ай бұрын
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450It's not going to be interesting because it's not going to happen.
@useodyseeorbitchute94508 ай бұрын
@@varun2250 Come on, don't discourage them, I want to watch them trying. :D
@wessam24538 ай бұрын
It doesn’t make any sense, North Korea 🇰🇵 is on the Global South and South Korea 🇰🇷 is on the Global North 🤯🤷♂️
@pranavgandhar46046 ай бұрын
You don't have any 🧠
@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish8 ай бұрын
"Global South" - half of it is north of the equator. Also, lumping china in with all the others is a bit strange to me considering how powerful their economy is.
@Ravi9A8 ай бұрын
@SGN30 his objections were rather telling
@Ravi9A8 ай бұрын
@@Flood-po6jf yeah, all hail the mighty luxemborgian per capita empire. lmao
@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish8 ай бұрын
@SGN30 that's what most people use it to mean if we're being honest.
@WilliamCarterII8 ай бұрын
I'm an anthropologist. There's a very clear definition lmao. I'm not sure why he said that.
@HiA_lejoA8 ай бұрын
and not a single mention of unequal exchange as a key factor in defining the actual relationship between north and south, i get it, it is not like people from the imperial core would care to challange that reality
@mydogisbailey8 ай бұрын
Please don’t compare brilliant to a university degree. They are not comparable substitutes, your messaging is very misleading
@MarktYertd8 ай бұрын
Australia is not the global south? really?
@hankjones35278 ай бұрын
It's not a geographical term. Same goes for calling us a Western country.
@balagopalg55608 ай бұрын
@@hankjones3527 Random Americans : so we are westest west
@dezz6958 ай бұрын
The simple definition would be 'dark skin' countries vs 'light skin' countries as the West. Which is why Australia is considered Western even though it is south of Oceania. It is ruled by a 'light skin' Western culture.
@dezz6958 ай бұрын
@sg23148 Not exactly since there are multiple European countries that are not well developed while some southern countries are very wealthy.
@asfojen8 ай бұрын
@@dezz695aborigins: God save the king!!
@makotosaito90678 ай бұрын
You basically just overcomplicated a term that is actually pretty easy to define. The global south are the countries that suffered from colonialism (and many still suffer from neocolonialism) and that many of its internal economic and political problems have their roots on this fact. It's not a blurred line or a term hard to define. Quite the opposite, it's very very clear to anyone that lives on the global south what the term means.
@makotosaito90678 ай бұрын
@SGN30 Europe AND the US, let's not even try to pretend they aren't also the source of the problem here
@MasterGhostf8 ай бұрын
How was China colonized? They were forced to open trade, but that's not colonialism. Was India colonialism? Why is Saudia Arabia considered colonized despite never colonizing. How is Syria and Iraq colonized? They were only controlled by European countries for a few decades at most after WW1. Why is south america there? They have been independent for centuries. I would allow a few could be considered colonized since there were that had governments overthrown by the US, but Brazil?
@shwethang43478 ай бұрын
@@makotosaito9067personal accountability. Stop blaming others, it’s been years
@makotosaito90678 ай бұрын
@MasterGhostf China wasn't just forced for trade, it was outright invaded by more than one country and England even declared war freaking twice so it could sell drugs into a country where its government was desperately trying to stop it. Saudi Arabia was under control of the Ottoman Empire until its dissolution and saying it was indirect is innocent. There are people alive today older than the modern country of Saudi Arabia (1932) and the same applies for the other Arabian countries. That's the very concept of neocolonialism, where you "technically" don't own that country like a classical colony, but when the country has downright no sovereignty and all its policies are determined for as long as they benefit the imperialist power controlling it. A good example of that is the reason of the recent coup in Niger, where "technically" they're no longer a French colony for decades, but when you have to sell your uranium for literally 1/100th of the regular price and you are forced to use a currency you have no control over, can you really call that anything other than neocolonialism? Also as a final notice you mentioned South America and more specifically Brazil, which is almost ironic to me cause I'm from Brazil. The entirety of Latin America has been under the sphere of influence of the US for the better part of the last 2 centuries. It's such a textbook clichê that the name "big stick policy exists". Brazil is literally until now suffering from the consequences of one of its biggest political crisis in history since 2016 and we now have not only documentation but also verbal declaration of the perpetrators of it having associations with the CIA. Brazil is literally a country where any time anything even close to a government that favors its own people rather than Washington even tried to get into the government, they were brutally sabotaged if not even assassinated. If you're even a bit curious about it you can also look up about the "Operation Condor". I don't mean to sound aggressive or pedantic by any case, but the idea that you used Brazil of examples is not only laughable but also shows a deep lack of understanding about the history of the global south. I'm sorry
@gfys7568 ай бұрын
@@makotosaito9067 Change your pfp. It's cultural appropriation. You're literally engaging in colonialism like your ancestors did.
@RipCityBassWorks8 ай бұрын
South of the Equator is what I've always assumed.
@weeb32778 ай бұрын
China and Turkey are in the south? Australia is in the north? Why not just split it into: Whites vs non-Whites after all that is what this is intended to do.
@hankjones35278 ай бұрын
I disagree. Eg, Japan, Taiwan, S Korea.
@sm125612 күн бұрын
Kudos to Jai Shankar and Bharath for bringing “Global South” into prominence.
@Balorian8 ай бұрын
The media is never more comfortable talking about something, as they are when its not well defined. The Global South includes almost all of the Global East, excludes Australia likely because of demographics that don't fit the modern narrative. The whole idea is a load of nonsense. Though I do think the West should have a new law that states no funding or tax payer money should be sent to the "Global South". That would quickly allow for an actual, factual definition.
@gfyphg98718 ай бұрын
@@Coglio Of course, the overall white populations of South Korea, Taiwan and Japan
@Balorian8 ай бұрын
You are exactly right. Amazing how its okay for some sides to be openly racist and the media goes along, but others are just evil. @@Coglio
@Pixelarter8 ай бұрын
The "west" term is as vague and misleading as "global south". It should be called "US ball-lickers" VS "non US ball-lickers" instead.
@mparmparos8 ай бұрын
Meanwhile Turkey still thinking where it belongs to...
@levanivashadze8 ай бұрын
There is an error on the map at 8:42 separating Abkhazia and South Ossetia but not outlining any other disputed regions.
@rajivmurkejee74988 ай бұрын
Australia and New Zealand are former colonies and in the South. Is Singapore in the Global South?
@l2qz7118 ай бұрын
Singapore is a Western country, it is in the global North
@gosnooky8 ай бұрын
Sing is not a western nation - sure, they're wealthy, but it's still autocratic.
@BonT77713 күн бұрын
SG is on the equator.
@rajivmurkejee749812 күн бұрын
@@BonT777 Actually Singapore is totally on the Northern Hemisphere.
@MrGatie14 күн бұрын
Have you done a video on the Africa china summit? I always prefer your breakdowns and explanations
@ArunSharma-w3v18 күн бұрын
Singapore with GDP per capita income of USD 82,000. Albania with per capita income of USD 6,200. is part of global North. Crazy....
@mathewomolo8 ай бұрын
lets be blunt and honest here. this definition is based on race.
@Pindasaus8 ай бұрын
If European problems aren’t world problems, but world problems are Europe’s problems, then we should stop caring?
@sagunsingh74158 ай бұрын
If Europe can't fix it's own problems, how can it fix the world's problems?
@filipe57228 ай бұрын
@@sagunsingh7415 We are wasting billions of euros in foreign aid to the global south when we have our own problems to fix. I wonder when will we finally refocus ourselves.
@0xCAFEF00D8 ай бұрын
@@filipe5722 50 Billion Euros per year for the EU collectively. But what'll really hurt you in the wallet is the per capita figures (ouch, $600/year, I'm in Sweden, it's far less elsewhere). And it doesn't buy us any geopolitical clout at all. The leadership of countries recieveing aid avoid to mention it. But that's mainly an informational issue. We don't give foreign aid attention here either. *But* it's massively effective money. And it's money that keeps people in terrible situations *alive* . It's vitally important. And it's not that much in terms of % of GDP, 0.92% goes to foreign aid here. I would not take that money if I could.
@octavianpopescu47768 ай бұрын
Honestly, often times, it's not European problems, but more precisely Anglo-American problems and we're included in them for some reason. Like the "culture war". No one is arguing over genders in my country, but Americans and Brits are. Yet somehow some people act like we're included in that package.
@octavianpopescu47768 ай бұрын
@sg23148 Romania.
@Kret-o8 ай бұрын
*grabs map and draws line through the middle and points to the bottom half* There, that's the global south
@atakanbaran90968 ай бұрын
Ahhh yes turkey my favourite south country
@125discipline23 ай бұрын
before colonialism the wealth was in global south. after colonialism the wealth is back to global south.
@MaxiTB8 ай бұрын
"Global South" is the new political correct term for "3rd world countries". As simple as that.
@soundscape268 ай бұрын
More apt because 3rd world doesn't make sense when there's no "2nd world".
@serebii6668 ай бұрын
@@soundscape26 "there's no "2nd world"." Yeah there is. Either China ostensible took over the Soviet Union's mantle of leader of the 2nd World, or Russia's continued attempts to annex and influence it's neighbors is the "evolved" second world since the Soviet Union days. NATO still exists for a reason.
@ibrahimbello55468 ай бұрын
Most intelligent American comment.
@kyle68998 ай бұрын
@@soundscape262nd world are communist states, 3rd world are unaligned 1st world are democracies. That's the original meaning
@MaxiTB8 ай бұрын
@@kyle6899 Yeah, it's cold war lingo, I don't blame kids those days to actually don't remember what those terms were referring too. Also I don't blame them for no being able to draw the connection - in a few years people won't even remember that there was once a wall in Berlin. Then I again, the renaming kinda worked, reading the clueless comment here. So hurrah for good rebranding?
@aaronhrynyk8 ай бұрын
The “global south” is language used by owellian speakers: white, rich, Liberals. Not the classical sense of liberal, the authoritarian, scary Liberal.
@josuaerick96708 ай бұрын
What are the chances, Indonesia's presidential debate yesterday also talked about how they gonna make Indonesia a powerhouse of the Global South
@stevengordon73318 ай бұрын
Basically it’s colonisers vs colonies
@12time128 ай бұрын
This isn’t 1960, you can’t use the excuse of colonialism anymore. South Africa isn’t in a bad spot because of the west. Rwanda and other successful African nations got there themselves too.
@nntflow70588 ай бұрын
China invade and colonize Tibet. What's the excuse on that?
@rizkyadiyanto79228 ай бұрын
@@12time12 when will white people finally leave australia, NZ, and north america? theyre still colonising them.
@nntflow70588 ай бұрын
@SGN30 I didn't know you are expunged from being a Colonizer if you're part of the global south. I guess the US should be part of the Global South too. Then people like you would start praising them for invading other countries too.
@manana14448 ай бұрын
@@12time12 Don't bother, people like him will be bitching about colonization even after 200 years
@errte78 ай бұрын
Bruh, our president candidate here in Indonesia just mention about this. What a coincidence
@fivetimesyo8 ай бұрын
Uhhhmmmm, it... it's the south... of the globe. *insert Khaby Lame gesture
@stuart43418 ай бұрын
but australia new zealand aren't in it hmmmmm
@banukasilva61537 ай бұрын
Brazil and South Africa can consider as one of the two strongest nations in global south which always trying to keep global north level quality of life along with higher level of western civilization.
@kname18828 ай бұрын
I think that south lacks some relly inportant things which makes a great divide here: 1.Whealth( above average or average) 2. Democracy( voting rights, freedom of expresion, political gatering etc...) 3.Peace( no criminal violents, no civil war no political instability, not invaiding other countries) 4.Human right and free speach( media freedom, tollerance for different peoples rights, religion) 5. Standard of living( for a majority people not only some groups in society)
@leonardoleo57408 ай бұрын
Chile and Uruguay are as prosperous as any other European countries, Singapore is also, etc.
@kname18828 ай бұрын
@@leonardoleo5740 Chile still dosent recognize problems of indigenous people such in political gatering, and land disputes, also with people of Rapa Nui island wanting autonomy. Singapur there is one political party dominating the landscape, and they use to have a lifelong politician who didn't allow any political opposition. Uruguay you can actually put them in "global north" buy these standards😃😃🙃
@Krazy6ix8 ай бұрын
Australia thinking it can escape the equator allegations
@JosephSolisAlcaydeAlberici8 ай бұрын
If Australia, Japan, and New Zealand are included in the Global North, then there is no reason not to include Argentina, Chile, Uruguay as well.
@serebii6668 ай бұрын
Too poor. Argentina, Chile, Uruguay are on China's or Mexico's level in GDP PPP/capita. Australia, Japan, and New Zealand have double the GDP PPP/cap.
@scattr75928 ай бұрын
No, they're too poor compared to Australia and New Zealand.
@whanua988 ай бұрын
@@serebii666???? huh? then what is north? money? what is geopolitic? are ppl insane.
@nathanmorton24868 ай бұрын
The whole point of the video is that the "global south" is a mostly undefined, ambigious group of nations, and means something different to everyone
@oldskoolmusicnostalgia8 ай бұрын
@@serebii666 New Zealand is considerably poorer than Australia or the USA in GDP per capita, hence shouldn't be there by your own criteria?
@mahmoodabbasi61207 ай бұрын
Central Asia is Global South South Korea is not part of global south but of global north
@debater4528 ай бұрын
Pretty much an invented term for coping tankies
@TheManinBlack90548 ай бұрын
You are about to get a lot of disappointment from people in the global south with that euro-centric atitude, keep being smug to them, it will surely get you more support
@tyalikanky8 ай бұрын
It moved north with each year. USA is half south already.
@izymapper8 ай бұрын
TLDR should also have mentioned Brazil's increasing role in the geopolitcs of the global south since the early 2000s. The rise of the left-wing to eleitoral success in the nation together with the already more strategic Brazilian foreign affairs ministry made, arguably since Lula, Brazilian influence and cooperation explode between it and the global south, and Brazil seen as the "forefront" of Latin America. Even though that influence had diminished during Bolsonaro's government, with Lula now in the presidency again for a year now pushed many of those countries, and specially lead BRICS to debate de-dolarization and more "anti US-EU lapdog" foreign policy
@TheRealEtaoinShrdlu8 ай бұрын
What are you on about?! The term "global south" has been used for decades and can be defined in a few ways. Often used incorrectly, but that does not mean it is a new term
@bearcubdaycare8 ай бұрын
It's a fuzzy grouping at best, oddly grouping China and India but separating China and Russia. It seems mostly designed to push a questionable narrative, perhaps imperialism versus resistance (how is China not imperialist, given East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and a ten dash line that envelopes all waters until the near offshore of the Philippines, Borneo and more, with millennia of such history?). If the grouping is poverty, then a global center, minus the Middle East, Singapore and such, and drawing the line between Guatemala and Mexico, might be more meaningful, but still very fractured, more a Swiss cheese. If political organization, then kleptocracies, autocracies and the just disfunctional make an enormous unwieldy group, and possibly little in common except socialism in the strict sense of government control of the means of production (thereby enabling all those problems). Useful to some degree, but the smitten will just ignore the enormous number of examples and lobby onward, willfully ignoring the far better results for the working people and poor in free markets (like Scandinavia), perhaps hoping to become part of the comfortable, unstressed feudal bureaucracy, or the small well connected billionaire class present in essentially all those countries, while the poor live without running water, sewer or properly connected electricity, and only hope for medical care. Many advocates like and romanticize that vision, with them looking in from the nice side, of course. A reality check shows that mainland China advanced rapidly when it adopted free market to a large degree, and free market, democratic Taiwan and Hong Kong advanced even further, while "license Raj" India advanced more slowly. That's the real upshot of the line. Draw the line between government control of the means of production, and free markets like Denmark's, often shown by studies to be friendlier to business than America, or Sweden where even primary education has vouchers that allow parents to choose providers, rather than government monopoly. Kind of the opposite narrative, when you look closely, than the narrative that the Global South sloppy idea tries to suggest. I've lived in several countries, and seen the differences that matter most first hand.
@l2qz7118 ай бұрын
Russia is a white country at least, plus China is more dictatorial than Russia
@clasicpotato8 ай бұрын
Are you talking about the global south or ranting against socialism? With a seeming lack of knowledge on socialism as you call Denmark a free market which is apparently the opposite to being socialist? Or are you talking against communism and getting the terms mixed up?
@m.junaidmahmood42098 ай бұрын
Its same as Australia and New Zealand are called the west.. well the earth is round and if you go far west, you might end up in Australia.
@charlesnunno83778 ай бұрын
This is ridiculous. If Turkey is in the Global South then Russia is in the Global South.
@ad_astra4688 ай бұрын
Basically the PC term for third world
@DefnitelyNotFred8 ай бұрын
Third world is not really a politically incorrect term, it’s just outdated since it came from the rivalry between USA and USSR. The third world was just a way to say “the non-aligned”, or as this video says, the Global South
@user-jt3dw6vv4x8 ай бұрын
The term "third world" arose during the Cold War that remained non-aligned. Don't know why anybody would still use it.
@user-jt3dw6vv4x8 ай бұрын
and what is thing about PC? How exactly is "Global South" the PC term for third world?
@stuart43418 ай бұрын
@@user-jt3dw6vv4x becuase the people who are pushing this term find other terms offensnive. Thats all this is and within a decade the term global south will be seen as offensive and a new term will come
@12time128 ай бұрын
@@user-jt3dw6vv4xit’s the term used by far, far left academics who have been wrong for 30 years. I don’t like “third world” either since it was coined by the USSR. “Developing countries” is appropriate in this day and age.