- 20 May 2018 17:20
#14916452
@blackjack21
I was talking about worldism as an economic and cultural concept rather than as a political concept during the Cold War. Most people today identify the worlds as socio-economic concepts with the first world being the most developed, second world being slightly less so, and the third world being undeveloped.
He was in fact being anachronistic even if I didn't know that worldism was created as conceivable form in 1961. He applied two modern concepts to the politics of 1940s Germany and the Roman Empire. The world was very much still multi-polar during the 1940s, America was still not considered to be a global superpower by that point despite many political scientists anticipating it's ascension and the Roman Empire existed at a time in which racism did not exist in the way we see it.
I also find it odd that you assume that A. I am getting this information from professors for some reason and B. that I don't look into primary sources when getting my information. Most of my historical knowledge is based on historians who have clear credentials and sources to verify their viewpoints. If there is a debated issue in the historical community, I look at both sides and try to identify what the issue really is about and then come to my own conclusions. In the case of Rich, I think have a professor teach about history is beneficial to him as he clearly does not understand even the basics of European history let alone Middle Eastern history.
It predates the 1990s. The terminology arose as a result of the non-aligned movement that was established in 1961. The first world represented NATO-aligned countries, the second world represented Soviet-aligned countries and the third world represented non-aligned countries.
I was talking about worldism as an economic and cultural concept rather than as a political concept during the Cold War. Most people today identify the worlds as socio-economic concepts with the first world being the most developed, second world being slightly less so, and the third world being undeveloped.
Rich wasn't being anachronistic. You just need to understand history a little better, and you won't be able to do that by relying on today's colleges and universities to educate you properly, because they serve to indoctrinate not to educate. Seek out primary sources yourself. Do not rely on professors to give you solid guidance.
He was in fact being anachronistic even if I didn't know that worldism was created as conceivable form in 1961. He applied two modern concepts to the politics of 1940s Germany and the Roman Empire. The world was very much still multi-polar during the 1940s, America was still not considered to be a global superpower by that point despite many political scientists anticipating it's ascension and the Roman Empire existed at a time in which racism did not exist in the way we see it.
I also find it odd that you assume that A. I am getting this information from professors for some reason and B. that I don't look into primary sources when getting my information. Most of my historical knowledge is based on historians who have clear credentials and sources to verify their viewpoints. If there is a debated issue in the historical community, I look at both sides and try to identify what the issue really is about and then come to my own conclusions. In the case of Rich, I think have a professor teach about history is beneficial to him as he clearly does not understand even the basics of European history let alone Middle Eastern history.