> Female hysteria in cyberspace, no doubt.
Paula:
lol. I was referring to *me* shaking my head and throwing my arms up in the air.
>
>> Some may articulate that division without a lot of
>> sophistication (e.g. between "poor countries" and "rich
>> countries") but it is understood as a reality by all but a
>> handful of people in the world, I think.>
> People will agree that some nations are richer than others, at least in
> some respects. But 'rich' and 'poor' are relative terms, not absolute
> categories as you assume.
I made no such assumption. As I thought I made clear (but evidently didn't) this division is understood but in a somewhat over-simplified way by most people in the world. That's what I meant by - "without a lot of sophistication".
> You won't be able to identify a cut-off point between them
> any more than between 'advanced' and 'less advanced' - though it would be
> quite 'hysterical' to see you try.
I'm happy - at least - that you are amused. Millions of people who live in poverty (yes, of course, that's a relative term) in the less advanced capitalist nations will probably not be so amused.
>Therefore your assumption is just a blank
> check for labeling nations according to one's political prejudices.
What "political prejudices"?
> To take a contemporary case, is Iceland in 2010 'rich' or 'poor'?
It's a relatively advanced capitalist nation which is in crisis.
> 'Advanced'
> or 'less advanced'? 'Imperialist' or 'imperialized'? I did hear one
> Icelander on the radio the other day complaining that Britain and Denmark
> are trying to 'colonize' his country. What do you think?
I think that other advanced capitalist nations are looking at the crisis in Iceland as a potential opportunity. Bottom-fishing, so to speak.
In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Jan 15 10:12:45 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EST