Where Actually is the "Global South"?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2024
- Sign up to Brilliant (the first 200 sign ups get 20% off an annual premium subscription): brilliant.org/tldr/
The term "Global South" has gained popularity without clear definition, often used in discussing international affairs. This video explores its origins, recent prominence, and attempts to define its meaning.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
🗣 Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
1. theconversation.com/the-globa...
2. worldview.stratfor.com/articl...
3. / 1738062223711363558
4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
5. datatopics.worldbank.org/worl...
6. www.worldatlas.com/articles/t...
7. www.eastasiaforum.org/2023/12...
8. english.alarabiya.net/News/sa...
9. www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9...
0:00 Intro
1:04 Context
3:40 What is the global south today?
3:59 1. Poorest countries in the world
3:06 2. G77
6:54 3. Non-alignment
8:15 Conclusion
9:33 Sponsor
Australia is not the global south because everything here is upside down, including Australia.
I Think you are referring to austria
No it's because they aren't savages
Live with wildlife make them savager@@Yawnymcsnore
We are the richest country in the Northern Hemisphere 😎😎😎🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
The real, global south, is the friends we made along the way!
*Enemies**
@@mohammed44_*friends with benefits
@@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?
the shitholes where we shit all the time!
@@mohammed44_ too pathetic to be enemies lol
The other thing that shapes the global south “sentiment “ on modern issues is that the “cold war” was boiling hot in the south.
What?
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
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.
Being NAM member was something to be proud of. Yet, it was turned into a slur and called third world.
Third world means it's poor. We need a term to describe the rest of the world who are not racist ignorant like you
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'.
Next question - how many years "Global South" needs to inevitably earn "economic/biased connotation", so it would need some replacement? ;)
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.
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 .
Fair agenda
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.
Hasn't really worked for them so far.
@@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.
@@s9ka972 You're talking about military matters, I'm talking about economic matters.
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.
@@fajaradi1223the same global south countries are literally LEDCs
You shoild worry. But not because its simplistic. 😂😂
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.
I love that they included Antartica
because this therm is meaningless
well its white enough to be included
Yes Antarctica is ours 🔥
@@magnusgranskau7487 Due to all those research stations it should be continent with highest average IQ...
In this multipolar world order, Pengu has to assert his sovereignty somehow
People are confused this not a geographical term but a political
ikr this should be common sense
What is the political definition and what purpose does it serve then?
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.
@@freedomfighter22222 Country which have been living under colonialism. To get rid their master influence once and for all.
Damn Jaishankar has really become famous globally
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.
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 😂
anti colonialism is what common among all global south countries , which westerners hate
You're aware that there are quite a few countries in the 'global south' that have histories -and long ones too- of being colonizers?
@@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.
Yeah that's cope from shit hole countries lol. They were shit hole before, they're shit hole after.
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.
I’m from Chile and I truly believe this idea of northern and southern globe is extremely dumb
I would classify Chile as part of the Global North, economically and politically.
Got love Chileans self hating is an art there
@@Evan490BCthey are literally saying they find the idea of global whatever dumb 🤦🏾♂️
@@sg23148 Yes, I know.
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.
non-alignment by definition doesnt support soviet union.
Soviet union and modern day China are incomparable.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922But india was a democracy in the commonwealth so was never going to be a part of the soviet block or the second world.
India favours only India
The only question is who offers them the best deal
@@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.
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
@@Person11068 The border between East and West is political (mostly), not geographical (mostly).
@@Person11068japan is product of allied state facism, they should be a part of europe no mater how evil japan is, they are priviledge.
@@Person11068 Japan is a rich, industrialized democracy, it sides with the West on most issues, and even it's constitution was basically just written by the United States.
@@lllluka If constitution /political system is a determinant, then all of South America would fall under West as well.
@@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
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.
‘Global south’ is contrived but ‘Third world’ isn’t?
I wouldnt say argentina
Argentina LMFAO
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 was sort of on board with you until you mentioned Argentina. Heck, even South Africa is currently in a crisis.
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.
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.
exactly
Couldn't agree more
Agreed
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
Inclusion of Tajikistan, et al. might be because the definition arose when they were all part of the USSR.
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.
Yeah "global south/north" are useless terms,
Global South is real. it's the half of the planet below the equator.
Agreed. Every country has its own wants and needs. "Global south" ignores that because its politically convenient for certain individuals.
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.
The Moldovan president is a typical US and EU puppet. Not a part of the global south
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?'
Let's face it. It's white vs non white.
@@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
China's not a developed country by any measure. Russia and China are part of the Global East
@@zolandia5262china is not a developed country and russia by any means??
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.
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.
@@serebii666
Not to mention countries like Australia and New Zealand.
@@serebii666 None of the countries you listed are firmly pro US
@@serebii666you talk a lot of shit
@@user-ds8rj2vc4v Also that is what Oceania is
Global South is where outside of the US and Europe's definition of the "world"
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.
@@floydwhatchacallit6823not to mention India is one the most racist countries on the globe
Thailand was never a European colony. but is still included in this group.
@@michaelhalsall5684 Thailand sacrificed their territory to avoid that.
ps. I guess you knew that but wanted to twist the story.
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.
Yeah
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
If only the term "third world" wasn't turned into an insult, we wouldn't need to rebranding as the global south.
Just ignore them then and use your own terms. Language and freedom of speech allows us to do so 😊
Yes, but both are true and real.
The map in the thumbnail basically looks like the Peter Griffin colour chart
yep basically the story of colonialism.
@@MarcusLangbart Is that the colonisation that brought modern life to the iron age people of africa?
Underrated comment 😂
Here, have a like 🤣
@@Aspartame69 oh look a colonial sympathiser
@@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
4:43 yemen isnt in africa, bruh
Yeah he should have said 13 as Kiribati and Yemen aren’t African. Although Yemen does have territory in Africa as they own Socotra
Yemen is close to africa
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.
Whoever decided that Australia is part of the north clearly failed school geography.
Definitely an american
@@sg231481000 percent, Americans are crap at geography
It’s a political term not geographical
The West stands for democracy, freedom, and wealth. The East is dictatorship, authoritarianism, nationalism, and slavery. The South is poverty, terrorism, famine, barbarism.
@@zenleonor9440a stupid political term. If you use a compass bearing it should be geographical. "The West" is also dumb
Someone should write an academic paper defining this term
On it!
Yes! :D
this term is actually hold ppl back from development.
Plenty already exist. The term has been in use for decades.
I believe that the definition is already used by many people, just not universally agreed to have a single definition
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.
Let's face it, it's just about race and US hegemony.
I'm sure South Korea just loves where that line's been placed.
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.
I know I'm being a nerd, but how are Turkmenistan/Kazakhstan north of the Brandt line?
Bc we arent as poor
Stan suffix doesn't necessarily mean we drink directly from rivers and shower under rain
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.
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.
Is Singapore part of the global south?
Both are too small to matter.
No it's not because it's a high income nation.
@@paulheydarian1281 Shows how little you know of the country 💀
@@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.
[Makes confused Korea noises]
Global South : So you get rich then you are Global north .
Global South : Then what is Global Warming ?
There is an error on the map at 8:42 separating Abkhazia and South Ossetia but not outlining any other disputed regions.
I always thought it meant that global south is nations that are south of the equator but I guess that me.
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
South of the Equator is what I've always assumed.
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.
There are 3, China and Russia are the other two permanent members
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
We were familiar with Turkey not being Europe but now it is not northern wtf 😒
9:08 Amazing change of wardrobe in an almost TikTokrian manner!
And you interpreted Falkland Islands as Malvines, so you gave them up to Argentina
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.
Especially if you still know how to define "woman"
8:39 I literally screamed. 😂
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. 😀
On the global stage, any European country is considered as "wealthy" and "west" even the eastern europe.
@@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 Tell that to the Welsh, Scots and Irish. 😂
@@MeeesterBond17 True... Let's then call them Anglo-Americans.
@@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.
Australia and New Zealand are former colonies and in the South.
Is Singapore in the Global South?
Singapore is a Western country, it is in the global North
@@l2qz711singapore is not a western country. Just because it corporates with usa
Sing is not a western nation - sure, they're wealthy, but it's still autocratic.
@@l2qz711 no such thing as global north you westoid
Who decided and defined where north and south is?
Just look for the giant outstretched hand. with the words "Give Me" echoing in your ears.
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.
you’re right
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.
correction. You can't find the meaning, and you can't glean the thought.
You're a mindless drone. That's why you don't understand it
Lol. Seperate those 4 countries into x-tian and muslim countries amd youll see. How stupid. 😂😂
So, it's pretty much the more palatable version of the term "third world."
it is a synonym
Only because it was turned into a slur. Rebranding had to be done
@@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?
G'Day from Australia....
Love the videos, no complaints, but can you please up the contrast on your videos? They have a white tint to them that makes me feel like I just finished swimming without goggles in an over-chlorinated pool.
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.
What?
@@alt1f4 What? I'm referring to what I understand as the Global South; the topic of this video.
What Imperial Core? are we in 19th century?
@@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.
Western Imperial core
"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.
Is global south = poor to you?
@@SGN30 his objections were rather telling
@@Flood-po6jf really? Higher gdp = higher population?
@@Flood-po6jf or maybe because they perform well economically
@@Flood-po6jf yeah, all hail the mighty luxemborgian per capita empire.
lmao
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.
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.
What are the chances, Indonesia's presidential debate yesterday also talked about how they gonna make Indonesia a powerhouse of the Global South
Never overestimate a political organization that includes both China and India
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.
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.
Australia thinking it can escape the equator allegations
11:19 interesting!
It feels weird to include Turkey when Constantinople was the center of western civilization for so long.
These oversimplifications never had any hope to live for centuries. They can't even live for decades.
Plus, Turkey is a NATO member.
@@KaanBeskardesyes
@@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.
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 “
I prefer the term "majority world", since it represents a loosely aligned group of nations that make up the vast majority of people.
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.
Those 5 Billion people aren't united and thus can't collectively say anything.
@@user-ny5hn1wc6kno it doesnt .only the US. China beats europe
@@heisenbachofficial9437 and how exactly are the rich countries "united" in anything?
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
@@pritapp788they're all significantly integrated with each other (but mainly the US)
Ahhh yes turkey my favourite south country
Bruh, our president candidate here in Indonesia just mention about this. What a coincidence
I feel like the global south may first come in as in the map, the south is downwards, and usually, while they make GDP charts, the least GDP countries are towards the bottom of the list, making them a metaphor or symbolic!
The racist line
Uhhhmmmm, it... it's the south... of the globe. *insert Khaby Lame gesture
but australia new zealand aren't in it hmmmmm
Meanwhile Turkey still thinking where it belongs to...
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.
Australia is not the global south? really?
It's not a geographical term. Same goes for calling us a Western country.
@@hankjones3527 Random Americans : so we are westest west
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.
@@Coglio Of course, the overall white populations of South Korea, Taiwan and Japan
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
The "west" term is as vague and misleading as "global south". It should be called "US ball-lickers" VS "non US ball-lickers" instead.
@@Pixelarter😂😂
It moved north with each year. USA is half south already.
Australia and New Zealand literally Further South than most Nations considered Global South, more Orwellian tripe from the ruling class.
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
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.
No such thing as global west, usa and japan are not the same, and "global south" have different politics
"stable democracies" lmao
I think you've done well to explain a few 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.
You also need to include the USA and ally as the one who wants more power and authority 😂.
I'm an anthropologist. There's a very clear definition lmao. I'm not sure why he said that.
It's LEDC. lower economically developed countries. It's not about anthropology
why you included Japan in your map as part of the global south?
,,Global South" is a strange term as it is located in the north from an Australian and New Zealandic perspective. So the term is north centric. That´s why I prefer the term ,,developing countries".
So in one suggested definition (G77+China), North Korea is global south and South Korea is not-Global-South. Makes me think these subgroups are somewhat excessive
in no world are the current north and south korea going to be put in any sort of economic or political category/group together, what were you expecting?
@@aariyanmahmud301 that's not what I was arguing but to counter your point look no further than 1:10. I just found it funny that it's not very geographical and silly that politicians are coming up with these arbitrary groups to make divisive us vs them arguments instead of working together in a less hostile manner
Who categorized it to becomes global south?
Central Asia is Global South
South Korea is not part of global south but of global north
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.
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.
No, they're too poor compared to Australia and New Zealand.
@@serebii666???? huh? then what is north? money? what is geopolitic? are ppl insane.
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
@@serebii666 New Zealand is considerably poorer than Australia or the USA in GDP per capita, hence shouldn't be there by your own criteria?
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)
Chile and Uruguay are as prosperous as any other European countries, Singapore is also, etc.
@@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😃😃🙃
USA invades other countries
South of wherever you live.
That's the rule I think.
Why mid Atlantic European Islands are under global south line?
That brant line is quite interesting, to considern or call Azores, Madeira and Canary islands colonies is highly tabu i mean you could say they were the very first colonies of the Colonial Age.
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.
What do you mean idea? It was a proper organisation that was created to do that.
This! Cold wars suck
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 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.
Colonialism from europe
@@SGN30 Europe AND the US, let's not even try to pretend they aren't also the source of the problem here
@@makotosaito9067 true
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?
@@makotosaito9067personal accountability. Stop blaming others, it’s been years
5:18 G77 Countries also include Turkmenistan, but the Global South shown at 1:16 is not(I also like how the Brandt line walk around Australia, when it's definitely in the south). I guess some other countries also differ, but indeed it's usually hard to determine such vague geopolitical terms. Even West contain some contradictory countries, like shouldn't Ja[an and Korea be east, what about Israel which is kinda Middle East. Also Middle East is a vague term, should Turkey also be included. European Union contains Cyprus which geographically is Asia. Australia was/is part of Eurovision(this is not Geopolitical term, but still interesting case).
Write in the comment what also comes to your mind which doesn't make sense.
I guess NATO somehow stands for its name: North Atlantic, so the most eastern country of the block is Turkey, which is technically has a contact with a water from Atlantic Ocean->Mediterranean.
Is Antarctica not in the south?
the poors
Pretty much an invented term for coping tankies
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