Do you hate non-developed countries? - Your opinion

Great, even Sweden makes fun of us :mad: ----------> kiddin :p

Seriously though,

Discrimination here in Europe is sometimes outrageous against eastern european countries. All the nicknames, weird reputations, and stuff like that just really pisses me off. Stupid develeped western europe :eek:kashii: -----:blush:

To this day I still hold a negative view of Austria although I only was there once for a couple of hours cuz i had to change planes, and this Die Hard villain Hans look alike guy, cheked and double checked my family's passports cuz I guess we looked suspicious :eek:kashii:, but most likely cuz we had Albanian passports. I mean sure there are regulations and stuff, but sometimes europe just goes overboard.

Sometimes I just get so frustrated with this moral and superior attitude that Western Europe exerts on the other half of the continent as if they are the perfect model to follow. I mean I hope that ppl like this in western europe who look down on us other less fortunate europeans realize how lukcy they were that communism didn't come into power in their country.

The thing I hate the most is when some bs filled EU mp's come to us and act all superior and cool and tell our governmetns what do and and how and etc, especially this arrogant German mp Doris Pack :eek:kashii:

I am for a united europe, but if the western countries dont give up this inhereted idea that they have developed about their higher morality and superiority, I don't see it happening.

@ you ppl who don't like developeING countries ,
It's thanks to them that are being taken advantage of by the DevelopED countries that you are able to keep the standard of living you have. So think twice about it :souka:
 
Last edited:
Miss_apollo7 said:
"Hate" is a very strong word for me...So, to answer the question: No, I don't 'hate' non-developed countries, I don't want to live in them permanently either.
About governments in some non-developed countries, I'd say that some governments in non-developed countries are not my taste, as some are corrupt (I am mostly thinking of some African governments). However, I would not use the word "hate", but more "not supporter of" in the context of governments.
I don't know why everyone is so quick to cite Africa in these contexts. :? Last years annual ranking from Transparency International, the leading non-governmental organization in the fight against corruption for instance actually places 5 Asian countries in the bottom ten for corruption (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikisan, Myanmar, Bangladesh) while only 3 African (Nigeria, Cameroon, and Angola) nations are represented. And it's an even more disproportionate percentage considering the number on each continent (Africa, 54, Asia, 37). :eek:kashii:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html
 
Elizabeth said:
I don't know why everyone is so quick to cite Africa in these contexts.
Simply because large parts of Africa are hotbeds of corruption. That doesn't mean that there isn't corruption anywhere else.


And it's an even more disproportionate percentage considering the number on each continent (Africa, 54, Asia, 37). :eek:kashii:
You missed the point that only 133 countries are included in the survey because "of the absence of reliable data." Almost half of all African countries are not included (to be exact, 25: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, DR Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, S?o Tom? and Pr?ncipe, Seychelles, Somalia, Swaziland, Togo, Western Sahara). While only 11 Asian countries are missing (to be exact: Afghanistan , Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Laos, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, North Korea, Turkmenistan).

You are right, everything is relative, but before you draw conclusions, you have to look a bit deeper into the proportions. & you should use the right numbers, depending on the list you use, Asia has between 47 & 52 countries (the latter includes eg. HongKong & Russia), not 37.
Luckily, tomorrow is a bank holiday here, hence I had some time to spend.

BTW, I would have never considered Georgia & Azerbaijan as Asian, but as European. I looked it up though & obviously, since they lie on what is considered the borderline between Asia & Europe, this is not as clear as I thought it is.
 
You missed the point that only 133 countries are included in the survey because "of the absence of reliable data." Almost half of all African countries are not included (to be exact, 25: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, DR Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, S?o Tom? and Pr?ncipe, Seychelles, Somalia, Swaziland, Togo, Western Sahara). While only 11 Asian countries are missing (to be exact: Afghanistan , Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Laos, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, North Korea, Turkmenistan).
I obviously didn't take a lot of time with this. There's probably a much stronger correlation between non- or newly emerging democracies (Haiti, Kenya, Nigeria, Myanmar etc) and corrupt governments than the continent they happen to be on.
 
Hate a non-developed country? No. Would I want to live in non-developed countries? Hmm...
 
Elizabeth said:
I obviously didn't take a lot of time with this. There's probably a much stronger correlation between non- or newly emerging democracies (Haiti, Kenya, Nigeria, Myanmar etc) and corrupt governments than the continent they happen to be on.
Then Miss Apollo should have said something like "I am mostly thinking of some governments in non- or newly-emerging democracies" instead of "I am mostly thinking of some African governments"? Wow, that would make language really easier.
Fact is, that corruption is rampant in several parts of Africa, I can't really see your problem with mentioning that.
 
bossel said:
Then Miss Apollo should have said something like "I am mostly thinking of some governments in non- or newly-emerging democracies" instead of "I am mostly thinking of some African governments"? Wow, that would make language really easier.
Fact is, that corruption is rampant in several parts of Africa, I can't really see your problem with mentioning that.
It isn't wrong or racist or anything, it's just that Africa usually ends up as the symbol for the world's most intractable problems. There's no denying corruption is likely to be more severe or widespread there than any other continent,from the ranks of mid-level civil servants to the private sector onto the highest levels of government. But obviously corruption isn't mostly in Africa, it's in 2/3rds of countries according to that Transparency Intl survey and is strictly a matter of the severe poverty, major wars, and lack of democracy there rather than anything to do with being African per se. :relief:
 
Elizabeth said:
It isn't wrong or racist or anything, it's just that Africa usually ends up as the symbol for the world's most intractable problems.
I see what you mean, stereotypes are usually a bit problematic. But in this case the core of truth inside that stereotype is so large, that we can actually use it. Although I wouldn't have come up with some African states as prime examples for corruption myself. I probably would have thought of Russia (shared rank 86) in that regard. Simply because that's the country mostly in the news here when it is about corruption.

Examples or stereotypes do not take away the truth that corruption is pretty much everywhere, though.
 
Yep, Hate is an extremely strong word. I don't understand why a thinking person would 'hate' a developing country, presumably on the basis that it is developing... What I think people hate/dislike are unrepresentative, corrupt, dictatorial governments. Because not only do they make it hard for everyone living in the country, it makes contact with developed countries difficult: and that means not only tourism (=$$) but also business contact and investment. Anyone want to go on a safari in Zimbabwe?
 
now, this really is an offensive thread...

if latin america and africa are non-developed regions is just because we were exploited and sacked by the europeans for centuries. you are responsibles for our current situation. you have no right to hate us. it should be the opposite most likely... and as a matter of fact that's what happens. europeans are still extremely disliked in africa and latin america.
 
now, this really is an offensive thread...

if latin america and africa are non-developed regions is just because we were exploited and sacked by the europeans for centuries. you are responsibles for our current situation. you have no right to hate us. it should be the opposite most likely... and as a matter of fact that's what happens. europeans are still extremely disliked in africa and latin america.

Hmm... reading through this old thread, it doesn't look like anybody was saying that they hate non-developed countries. In fact, people questioned the question and either said "no" or gave a nuanced response about something they disliked about non-developed countries.

I don't tend to harbor ill will toward any country, per se. Perhaps I dislike some current governments, but I see potential in most countries. I can understand historical antipathy coming from non-developed nations toward Europe, but I question how much relevance it holds today. Europe trades with and gives foreign aid to many of the non-developed nations, after all. The only remaining point of serious contention I see is with regard to recent military action.
 
false. europe is still exploiting africa and latin american with their multi-nationals.

they don't want more competition... they want us to be underveloped, so that we can be their puppet.
 
"GRRRR, why won't you develop! You make me so angry!":mad:

That's generally what ever westerner thinks when they get out of bed in the morning. We get up grab the clip board of undeveloped countries and watch the news to see if we can tick any off them off the list. Just saying out loud to ourselves "develop, develop, you kow you want to" :grin:
 
i wouldn't have used the world hate, but disdain.

you can make jokes about it edao but you can't argue against this: multinationals from the developed world (esp. usa and spain) have done nothing but exploit all over latin america, our lands, our natural resources, our people... they want us to open our frontiers to their capitals but when we want them to be receptive with our migrants, all they do is make xenophobic laws. what should we feel about that?
 
"GRRRR, why won't you develop! You make me so angry!":mad:

That's generally what ever westerner thinks when they get out of bed in the morning. We get up grab the clip board of undeveloped countries and watch the news to see if we can tick any off them off the list. Just saying out loud to ourselves "develop, develop, you kow you want to" :grin:

Exactly my dream too! Develop, develop, develop quickly.

After sucking dry China by the west, for decades, finally it help them and they are developing quickly now, so is India and rest of far east. :grin:

Canek stop whining about the west, ask china, Singapore, S Korea, Hong Kong, Japan how they finally did this. Mind that most of them were colonized too in the past.
You can do that too, we wish you well.

I thought Chile was quite developed?
 
i wouldn't have used the world hate, but disdain.

you can make jokes about it edao but you can't argue against this: multinationals from the developed world (esp. usa and spain) have done nothing but exploit all over latin america, our lands, our natural resources, our people... they want us to open our frontiers to their capitals but when we want them to be receptive with our migrants, all they do is make xenophobic laws. what should we feel about that?

Multinationals have done some exploiting of natural resources, certainly, but the primary responsibility for the protection of those falls on the developing countries' governments. It is also the responsibility of the governments to determine whether or not to allow multinationals to operate within their borders, and, not surprisingly, most make the good decision to allow them to. The net effect of multinationals operating and selling products within a country on employment, per capita GDP, and cost of living are almost universally positive. Usually, the criticism of multinationals comes from two directions: either they are supposedly mistreating workers, or they are forcing a dependence on the population. And although abuse of the workforce does occur, it is relatively uncommon, and in almost all cases, the workers are better off than if they had not accepted work with the corporation. Similarly, we find the opposite of dependency theory true--countries that allow multinationals to operate are more likely to generate their own legitimate competitors.

Besides, why would any of this lead to disdain on the end of the developed nations?
 
lebrok, china, india and the rest of asia developed??? there are millions of people in all these countries being exploted by foreign multinationals. don't look only at the economic stats... they don't always show the quality of life and the well-being of a country.

i am not chilean and i don't reside in chile either. i'm just paying a little tribute to a brother country which suffered a terrible catastrophe the past year.

chile has basically the same problem that china (but to a less degree), unfortunatly a lot of chileans have been brainwashed with the "chile is the england of south america" propaganda.
 
Well I agree that the west has exploited Africa and S America for a long time but I also think they themselves need to take some of the blame, as it is their corrupt governments that have allowed the exploitation.

If they want to be taken seriously by the west they need to get rid of any chips on shoulders, stop the whinging and whining, get rid of corruption, get decent governance and start taking responsibilty for themselves instead of blaming everything on others. As has already been pointed out, many in Asia have done it and done it brilliantly, and are well respected for it.
 
our goverments can't do anything against more powerful countries... they are forced to accept the capitals of the corrupt multinationals from the developed world

(i explained the case of asia already, i'm not going to repeat again)
 

This thread has been viewed 48105 times.

Back
Top