Alternativas a 'Global South'?


#1

Hola a todas, cómo están?

Vengo a abrir una discusión que me planteó @shannond, sobre qué término utilizar a futuro en los materiales que se elaboren desde GOSH.

Personalmente me gusta bastante poco el término “global south” aunque claramente comparado con “países en desarrollo” o “países periféricos” (:confounded:) es un poco mejor.

Ella me pasó éste artículo donde proponen el término “Majority World”.

Qué piensan? Conocen otras denominaciones más felices? Otros artículos sobre el tema?


#2

thumbs up for Majority World!

i have been using it ofteh myself recenlty. but yes, it still needs explaining. but i like the term, cos it includes the “whole” world, but focuses on those in need, lack of resources, discriminated, but not according to a pre-assumed “line” from north to south, west to whatever. but includes those within every country.

m


#3

I don’t like any of them actually. I feel we are not there yet.
“Majority world” means nothing to me, and probably means nothing to everybody else.
I’m not against using it tough, since “developing countries” really bothers me.
“Low-income countries”, or even “Low-income communities” seems more accurate. Since the use “communities”, instead of “countries”, includes people from “”“developed countries”"" that are not “”"“developed”"" , as the cited article points out.
Either way, we first need to define to each countries were are referring to, before giving it a name.
It seems to be that we refereed to “forgotten countries”, or “under-heard”, or even “underestimated” countries. Isn’t it?


#4

I agree with @marinappdf on everything here, “majority world” seems really vague. Plus it is used by some organizations I really dislike haha… I do prefer -don’t like but prefer- the more specific “low-income” or “medium-income countries”, a pretty much GDP focused term, but… pufff… language :weary:


#5

We don’t have room for a long definition or list on the application form and I likewise don’t want people to get lost in deciphering the meaning of a term. How does this work: “people from low income nations and communities in Africa, South America and Asia”


#6

@pazbernaldo @marinappdf we’re hoping to get GOSH 2018 applications out by 20 April if you have a moment to respond before then. Thanks!


#7

I edited Shannon’s message above, we want to distribute by 20 April if you get a chance before then. Thanks very much!


#8

I believe it’s good. Don’t you want to add the other two continents?


#9

Sorry @marinappdf I’m not sure I understand-- do you mean add United States, Europe, Australia (and Antarctica!) since we’re including "people from low income communities (and nations in the case of Europe)?


#10

I just read your comment again and realized I haven’t read “South”, so I was confused about which america you refered to. But since I have already written the response, here it goes:

I meant Europe and Oceania, I thought it should also be included since america was listed, and america includes north, central and south.
I haven’t though about Antarctica, but why not?
I don’t have a strong opinion about it, should we consider any low income communities, from any part, or should we consider only the ones from the ~~~~ global south ~~~ ?
Honestly, if we aim to give cotes to people from different communities of the same country, or nation, it may be very hard to define whether these or that should or not be granted. This would takes us a bunch of more discussion, and listing. . .
So, I believe it’s better, for now, to write: “people from low income nations and communities in Africa, LATINA America and Asia”

(Latina america includes south and central america and also has a more cultural character of identification that is nice to reinforce)


#11

I think the Latina term may rise confusion, many people identify as latinos around the world and it would be complicated for funding

‘Low income nations and communities in Africa, South America, Central America and Asia’ suits me. It’s not the best but ‘majority world’ seems a bit vague to me.


#12

I agree with @jarancio


#13

haha, my response sounds to lazy… the Valpo hills are killing me :slight_smile:


#14

Hi @jarancio @marinappdf @pazbernaldo @shannond ,
I also agree with "people from low income nations and communities in Africa, South and Central America and Asia
(Also, majority world doesn´t mean much to me but haven´t had the time to read the article though)


#15

You are so right @jarancio , yep.
That`s it.
:sunglasses:


#16

Great thanks for all the input, we have our phrasing :slight_smile:


#17

Hello!

It is a little late for the practical issue of the form, but I find this discussion interesting in a broad perspective, since we are continuously dealing with this issue.

I also have to think about a terminology/label to use sometimes, and I agree the best way is to be explicit to what you mean, but sometimes is not possible.

  • “Majority world” is to vague. It would be necessary to qualify this majority.
  • “Countries in development” is also problematic, since “development” is not good by itself, and would be important to define what “development” is desirable and pursued by those countries/groups/communities.
  • “Global South” ends up being vague either, because even in the article referred by @jarancio its written that we have some rich countries in the southern hemisphere, like “Argentina, Chile”, and that would cause confusion.

This point raised another question for me, because if Argentina and Chile are in this list, Brasil is there either, and I always thought of Brasil being precisely in the Global South, because of the extension and deepness of the social problems over here, but that might not be the case. So what is the case?

My guess is that we are not sharing a common perspective when talking about this label. And that is one of the downside of the labels and why is good to be explicit. But should we pursue a minimally common perspective?

  • Maybe yes, and in that case I would think about qualities/characteristics/values that are shared by those countries/groups/communities.
  • Maybe no, so it is better to focus on the explicit approach.

And considering the explicit expression used by GOSH. It seems good, but that excludes Mexico, that I consider a country with much the same problems of Brasil, that is included in the list, so that raises the problem of the perspective again for me.

I don’t know how problematic it is in the matter of funding, but I would still use “Latin America and the Caribbean” instead of “South America and Central America”.

Grande abraço!
Salve!