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.
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?
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".)
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
@@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?
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 .
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.
@@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.
I've been questioning the rise of the "Global South" as a term, mainly because of its recent rise in prominence over "Third World" that's been lingering around since the end of the Cold War. Sometimes, it feels like a euphemistic term to replace the latter as a more obvious economic/biased connotation that it took on over time rather than a political one it had.
I agree with this sentiment. I don't think there's any deeper meaning behind 'Global South' than simply a more palatable alternative to 'Third World', or perhaps 'non-Western'.
Global South, is a term used by tankies, much like their other favorite term, multi-polar world. A lot of these people are pro-imperialism and root for China invading Taiwan, they also support Russia's imperialist adventures and Hamas as well. Generally speaking I find these people to have a very bad ideology and they support imperialism and genocide on the regular. They are also more pro-dictatorship than democracy in general.
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.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
@@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
@@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).
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
Romania used to be a member of g77 since 1976 up to 2007 , but since there were no european countries allowed( or no european classification area) they classified Romania as Latin American 😂
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.
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.
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.
There's four regions: - The West (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, US, Canada, Israel, and Europe (excluding Russia and Belarus)) - The East (China, North Korea, Russia) - The South (Everywhere Else) - Mongolia
@@zUJ7EjVD Why is mongolia on its own, when you group even Russia and China together? What about the Carribean - Mexico - and places like Brazil. What about the Gulf States? Singapore? Turkey? Your definition of "West" suspiciously overlaps with "advanced economy" which is then just useless
It's weird how Moldova is considered developed and Chile is not and countries like Turkmenistan are in the global north, while South Korea is in the global south. This definition needs to be updated.
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...
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?'
@@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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
I HATE the term "Global South" and "The West" as it lumps everyone into boxes, ignores political and economic realities and differences while splitting on geography (ex: what sane person looks at a world map and thinks Germany is west; South America is not west but is south while Australia isn't south and Japan doesn't fit in east?). Madness.
well, we here in south american identifies ourselves as 'west' we are very eurocentric cultered, we're christian, mostly white, but we do not consider part of 'global south' or '1st world', because our economy sucks lol
The vast majority of South Americans would be very surprised that colonial powers don't consider South America as part of the "west". The "west" is the region that traces its historical, cultural, and political roots ultimately to classical Greece and the Roman empire. The idea that largely catholic speakers of Latin-derived languages would somehow fail to qualify is madness.
@@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
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.
I love how Western media keeps pushing "entire world does this and that" while casually ignoring 5 billion people and just meaning the Western alliance.
I don’t think the western world accounts for more than a billion people. Especially if you are counting the countries based on their demographics being mostly white
@@oldskoolmusicnostalgia The West stands united in Democracy, Freedom, Prosperity, and Human rights. The global south negates these ideologies and opt for poverty, slavery, dictatorship.
The West stands for democracy, freedom, and wealth. The East is dictatorship, authoritarianism, nationalism, and slavery. The South is poverty, terrorism, famine, barbarism.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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).
@@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.
@@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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
@@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).
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. 😀
@@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.
@@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.
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.
"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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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?
@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
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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?
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.
@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.
