What is a -Developed- Country? Crash Course Geography #40
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Skeleton
-CrashCourse is still great, but shows more of a Marxist bias than before. The Oppressor vs Oppressed dialectic cannot explain why some nations that were colonized are rich and others poor, nor how other nations which had no colonies are richer than those that had colonies. Empires don't make countries rich, they make the imperial elite wealthier at the expense of People, both in the overseas colonies and in the homeland (which itself is just another colonial possession in the eyes of the Elites, as one can see with England within the British Empire, where 1/6 children died before the age of 5 in 1900.
In other words, its a simplistic narrative that ought to be challenged, not parroted, and its funny how ancient examples such as Rome and the Ottomans are held as examples of development, but then modern empires are seen as problematic. All empires are bad, and some are much worse than others.
In reality, what a people did both before and after colonization (e. g. Sub-Saharan Africa had colonization for an average of just 80 years compared to millennia of history and 60 years of independence) is a greater indicator of how developed their state is economically. And also, what's with the -developed-, as if to question the term? If a country has industrialized, it is developed. If it still has a majority of its population still living as they did thousands of years ago, they are under-developed.
If one actually goes to live in under-developed countries (like myself in Tanzania, trust me, its a bourgeois luxury to sit back from the comfort of one's developed lifestyle and not have to worry about no running water, no sanitation, no electricity, tropical diseases without the means to treat them (except for with Western medicine from -developed- countries that under-developed countries can't produce. One can say that such a life is -developed-, but for those who live in such conditions, they are under no such bourgeois illusions.
But as I say, great video, but talk about both sides of the argument. I'd prefer folks to provide both sides of the debate rather than this false -objectivity- and -impartiality-, which more often than not simply presents Marxist rhetoric as objective, impartial truth, which it most certainly is not.
reply
-CrashCourse is still great, but shows more of a Marxist bias than before. The Oppressor vs Oppressed dialectic cannot explain why some nations that were colonized are rich and others poor, nor how other nations which had no colonies are richer than those that had colonies. Empires don't make countries rich, they make the imperial elite wealthier at the expense of People, both in the overseas colonies and in the homeland (which itself is just another colonial possession in the eyes of the Elites, as one can see with England within the British Empire, where 1/6 children died before the age of 5 in 1900.
In other words, its a simplistic narrative that ought to be challenged, not parroted, and its funny how ancient examples such as Rome and the Ottomans are held as examples of development, but then modern empires are seen as problematic. All empires are bad, and some are much worse than others.
In reality, what a people did both before and after colonization (e. g. Sub-Saharan Africa had colonization for an average of just 80 years compared to millennia of history and 60 years of independence) is a greater indicator of how developed their state is economically. And also, what's with the -developed-, as if to question the term? If a country has industrialized, it is developed. If it still has a majority of its population still living as they did thousands of years ago, they are under-developed.
If one actually goes to live in under-developed countries (like myself in Tanzania, trust me, its a bourgeois luxury to sit back from the comfort of one's developed lifestyle and not have to worry about no running water, no sanitation, no electricity, tropical diseases without the means to treat them (except for with Western medicine from -developed- countries that under-developed countries can't produce. One can say that such a life is -developed-, but for those who live in such conditions, they are under no such bourgeois illusions.
But as I say, great video, but talk about both sides of the argument. I'd prefer folks to provide both sides of the debate rather than this false -objectivity- and -impartiality-, which more often than not simply presents Marxist rhetoric as objective, impartial truth, which it most certainly is not.
reply
winj3r
As someone who studied Geography at the University level, I can only say this video is lacking in it's analysis.
The definition of a developing country never rested only on economic status of a country. Several indexes were and are considered.
These will include scientific and education, access to basic needs such as water, food, roads, etc. Also, the political status of the country, regarding the freedom of the people. And wealth distribution, resulting in indexes such as the gini coefficient.
And mind you most of these indexes are related. For example, a country with greater scientific production and education, can make products more efficient and of better quality, thus making more wealth. Which in turn means better wages. Better infrastructure. Better social and political stability, which in turn can affect all of previous factors.
Also consider that the prior to the industrial revolution, there was a chemical revolution and an agricultural revolution in Europe. These allowed certain European countries to gain an advantage in scientific knowledge, that provided the basis for industrialization.
And then there are the social and political revolutions in Europe that fomented the shift to more democratic states. Such as the French revolution. The Congress of Vienna. Or the revolutions of 1848. The rise of scientific socialism as a main political ideology. WW1 and several European countries increasing popular suffrage. And the list goes on.
reply
As someone who studied Geography at the University level, I can only say this video is lacking in it's analysis.
The definition of a developing country never rested only on economic status of a country. Several indexes were and are considered.
These will include scientific and education, access to basic needs such as water, food, roads, etc. Also, the political status of the country, regarding the freedom of the people. And wealth distribution, resulting in indexes such as the gini coefficient.
And mind you most of these indexes are related. For example, a country with greater scientific production and education, can make products more efficient and of better quality, thus making more wealth. Which in turn means better wages. Better infrastructure. Better social and political stability, which in turn can affect all of previous factors.
Also consider that the prior to the industrial revolution, there was a chemical revolution and an agricultural revolution in Europe. These allowed certain European countries to gain an advantage in scientific knowledge, that provided the basis for industrialization.
And then there are the social and political revolutions in Europe that fomented the shift to more democratic states. Such as the French revolution. The Congress of Vienna. Or the revolutions of 1848. The rise of scientific socialism as a main political ideology. WW1 and several European countries increasing popular suffrage. And the list goes on.
reply
Fa
I appreciate mentioning Lebanon in this episode, especially given the incredibly horrible economic crises plaguing the country due to political corruption, but towards the end of the video it is said that Lebanon is the homelands of the Druze people. At the very least this is an oversimplification or incorrect. If you are determining this based on the history of the group-s existence in the region Maronite Catholics have found refuge in the slopes of Mount Lebanon since 402CE centuries before the Druze arrive around 1000CE. Please correct me if there is another metric being used. Also to say the this is the homeland of the Druze is especially inflammatory given the political situation in the country. Coexistence is trying to be put into practice there and while it is incredibly dysfunctional in that respect, this claim that Lebanon is the homeland of the Druze exclusively does nothing to support the practice of coexistence. I enjoyed the video and many good points were made, but I felt this needed to be respectfully addressed.
reply
I appreciate mentioning Lebanon in this episode, especially given the incredibly horrible economic crises plaguing the country due to political corruption, but towards the end of the video it is said that Lebanon is the homelands of the Druze people. At the very least this is an oversimplification or incorrect. If you are determining this based on the history of the group-s existence in the region Maronite Catholics have found refuge in the slopes of Mount Lebanon since 402CE centuries before the Druze arrive around 1000CE. Please correct me if there is another metric being used. Also to say the this is the homeland of the Druze is especially inflammatory given the political situation in the country. Coexistence is trying to be put into practice there and while it is incredibly dysfunctional in that respect, this claim that Lebanon is the homeland of the Druze exclusively does nothing to support the practice of coexistence. I enjoyed the video and many good points were made, but I felt this needed to be respectfully addressed.
reply
Jason
I-m a first generation American, and I-ve begun to use the term -overexploited nations- rather than -underdeveloped countries-, because it does two things.
1) Rather than placing the blame on the nation itself for being underdeveloped it shifts the narrative that the country has been sucked dry of its rich resources, and the one to blame should be the colonizers, not the nation who works twice as hard to make a living.
2) The use of the term -over-exploitation- raises awareness of the atrocities that have been committed in these beautiful countries, and gives others an incentive to do further research on the history of colonization within these nations.
The term -underdeveloped- never sat right with me growing up, because of how outdated it is, and the deeply rooted history it has in colonialism. Overexploitation changes that narrative, and I hope to see it used more since 9/10 the ones to blame are typically European nations, and their descendants, not the nation itself.
reply
I-m a first generation American, and I-ve begun to use the term -overexploited nations- rather than -underdeveloped countries-, because it does two things.
1) Rather than placing the blame on the nation itself for being underdeveloped it shifts the narrative that the country has been sucked dry of its rich resources, and the one to blame should be the colonizers, not the nation who works twice as hard to make a living.
2) The use of the term -over-exploitation- raises awareness of the atrocities that have been committed in these beautiful countries, and gives others an incentive to do further research on the history of colonization within these nations.
The term -underdeveloped- never sat right with me growing up, because of how outdated it is, and the deeply rooted history it has in colonialism. Overexploitation changes that narrative, and I hope to see it used more since 9/10 the ones to blame are typically European nations, and their descendants, not the nation itself.
reply
ShadowAkatora
I'd say it's a country with indoor plumbing. Where most of the population is educated above a third grade level. Where there isn't rolling blackouts. No military coups every three months.
High life expectancy, low child mortality. Where people visit their local doctor instead of their local shaman. And where women aren't seen as second class citizens.
reply
I'd say it's a country with indoor plumbing. Where most of the population is educated above a third grade level. Where there isn't rolling blackouts. No military coups every three months.
High life expectancy, low child mortality. Where people visit their local doctor instead of their local shaman. And where women aren't seen as second class citizens.
reply
Jakasaurus
This video isn't science based. its reaching for ways to justify success of a country when its simple, a successful country requires good leadership and accountability, NK VS SK as an example, has nothing to do with race or gender. if you disagree please tell me why I'm wrong instead of deleting my comments.
reply
This video isn't science based. its reaching for ways to justify success of a country when its simple, a successful country requires good leadership and accountability, NK VS SK as an example, has nothing to do with race or gender. if you disagree please tell me why I'm wrong instead of deleting my comments.
reply
Hamza
Actually the idea of development should focus over intricate balance between the lives of individuals and nations collectively. The -perception- of -economic authority- and every nation correcting their course and pushing themselves sometimes in regress should be discouraged. Polarization begets polarization.
reply
Actually the idea of development should focus over intricate balance between the lives of individuals and nations collectively. The -perception- of -economic authority- and every nation correcting their course and pushing themselves sometimes in regress should be discouraged. Polarization begets polarization.
reply
William
I think Argentina and other Latin American countries represent an interesting case study in 'development. ' In the early 20th century Argentina had greater per Capita income than Canada and Australia, but years of military dictators and coups led to start political and economic instability.
reply
I think Argentina and other Latin American countries represent an interesting case study in 'development. ' In the early 20th century Argentina had greater per Capita income than Canada and Australia, but years of military dictators and coups led to start political and economic instability.
reply
Isauro
Would have been nice to mention that GDP per capita and the Human Development Index (HDI) have been observed to be directly correlated to how happy people report they are. There are caveats of course, but seems like a big omission while trying to promote alternative development measurements.
reply
Would have been nice to mention that GDP per capita and the Human Development Index (HDI) have been observed to be directly correlated to how happy people report they are. There are caveats of course, but seems like a big omission while trying to promote alternative development measurements.
reply
Victor
okay my favorite model for like ranking a countries development is the world-system-theory, it separates countries into core economic countries that produce goods, periphery countries that provide resources that create those goods, and semi periphery countries that do a little bit of both
reply
okay my favorite model for like ranking a countries development is the world-system-theory, it separates countries into core economic countries that produce goods, periphery countries that provide resources that create those goods, and semi periphery countries that do a little bit of both
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
