The developing world is more unapologetic about luxury than the West...

[RadioRaheem84]

I came from a pretty international school and noticed that most of the international students were very openly elitist. More so than the average rich American or Westerner?

I really do not want to generalize any specific race of people as everyone is an individual but I did notice that a lot of Middle Eastern, Indian and Asians were more openly elitist than the American and European students. They all varied of course, and I did meet some snooty Europeans but for the most it was taboo to poke fun at downtrodden people. The new wealthy aristocracy of the third world though did not care about being that openly crass. I mean just watching Indian TV it made wonder just how they get away with some of their programming. It's so blatantly snobbish and pro-wealth. Some of that stuff would never get aired here in the States.

Point is, this dangerous addiction to wealth and luxury is penetrating all levels of society all around the world, even here in the US. I just don't want this unapologetic crass behavior to start dominating the US sphere too (even though it already is).

What makes it OK to do this sort of stuff in the third world? and how can we watch out for it here in the States?

[CommunistWaffle]

I think "developing world" is a snooty snobbish capitalist term to discredit the Third World. Its not as if the Third World countries were always poor. Its only after the First World imperialists came over and looted all their wealth that they became poor. To call them "developing" is pretty inaccurate since they were pretty developed and wealthy places before imperialism ravished them.
That's a lie. For example take Africa. Colonialism brought forced unity between the tribes and united them. Europeans also heavily industrialized their nations and left them a lot better than they were in mudhuts during pre-colonialism.

[CommunistWaffle]

That wealth was being untapped in the first place. It is natural, it grows back. When the europeans left they left their factories for the new nations to use and develop. Are you saying the europeans made no effort to industrialize their colonies? You would be foolish to say so.

[Plagueround]

That's a lie. For example take Africa. Colonialism brought forced unity between the tribes and united them. Europeans also heavily industrialized their nations and left them a lot better than they were in mudhuts during pre-colonialism.

Such vile eurocentric trash. Tell me more though...I'm intrigued.

[CommunistWaffle]

http://www.globalpolitician.com/22569-africa

[Plagueround]

http://www.globalpolitician.com/22569-africa

That's what I thought. If anyone is interested in some of this article's content:





Colonialists brought far more into Africa than took out of it. It is for that reason that most world empires easily let go of the continent, with only white settlers opposing black rule. From London, Lisbon and Brussels, Africa is totally useless. Local white settlers understood the destruction the end of colonialism would bring into their lives, but for Europeans, colonialism was a waste of money and resources.

The standard of living in Africa under colonialism has not been matched even despite billions of dollars of annual aid to the continent from white countries.

Why is South Africa the powerhouse of Africa? Answer: More whites lived in South Africa than any place else, and white rule ended only 13 years ago.




(1) White people are ingenious and hard-working. Their main contribution is ability to organize and that is what brought prosperity to Africa. Whites contribute out of all proportion to their small numbers.

(2) Blacks have been adopted by communists, Marxist, socialists, leftists and liberals - and most of these people believe in some form of government handouts and drive blacks towards socialism. Unfortunately communism doesn't work anywhere in the world - so why should it work in Africa?

The most successful experiment in black capitalism I've ever seen occured in the mid-1980's in South Africa under apartheid. President PW Botha changed laws and allowed a black taxi industry to exist. In my view it is the single most successful experiment in black capitalism that ever occurred on the face of this planet. That model, if expanded, upon could be the future of Africa and could provide hope for black people everywhere.

The problem is that blacks prefer the dreams of a socialist government giving them everything rather than working to improve their fate.Later, fuckbag. Banned.

[Kayser_Soso]

Westerners are often shocked at the "materialism" of those from poorer countries. Whereas an American or Canadian would brag about getting a good bargain on something of high value, in poorer countries you get status for paying a lot for something, even if it is terribly overpriced.

This is why Naomi Klein's arguments about the power of branding and advertisements is largely bullshit. The other day I went to a market place to buy a new jacket, and its the type of market where there are stalls owned by petit-bourgeois types. Apparently I was in the wrong place because the cheapest jacket I found was 10,000 rubles(this is somewhere around $340), and many of those I saw were somewhere around $1,500. These were not leather jackets, and neither were many of them brand-name either.

[Hiero]

I would imagine these students are the children of the third world bourgeoisie.

In the west the rich are now engaging in a culture of chairty, which any sceptic can see this is just purely a self purification of guilt tainted with confused feelings of 3rd world people. These rich are miles away from the poor, they are more imaginary then anything else, even when the celebrities of the bourgeoisie go to the 3rd world there view is still tainted. There views are pushed forward by some grand humanistic idea of we are all the same some less fortunate then us (Americans, Europeans).

While if anyone has been to a 3rd world nation that is heavily polarised it is quiet amazing how quick you can go from a rich guarded neighbourhood to a ghetto inbetween getting to say a mall. In the 3rd world it is the class culture to emphasis these differences, more so then in the west and given the violence these class hatred from the top down is more extreme.

My experience is that thoose in the top rings of a 3rd world bourgeiosie have a culture of emphasising difference either from historical, cultural or political reasons. I think these leads a different snoobishness then their first world bourgeois cousins.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think "developing world" is a snooty snobbish capitalist term to discredit the Third World. Its not as if the Third World countries were always poor. Its only after the First World imperialists came over and looted all their wealth that they became poor. To call them "developing" is pretty inaccurate since they were pretty developed and wealthy places before imperialism ravished them.

I think "Third World" is more snobbish in that it has lost all Cold War connotations and now categorizes countries in ranks of "first" and "third" ("second" seems to be skipped over). Developing seems more accurate since we're specifically talking about industrialization, not the relative conditions of wealth in the 1500s. Unfortunately there's no way to generalize 200+ entities without coming off as pretentious in one way or another.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

There is nothing snobbish about "third world", "underdeveloped", "developing", etc
it's consistent with the materialist analysis of historical and material capitalist development, like genecosta said
What can be said to be Eurocentric or "snooty" against the third world is the view that progress and development in general are brought to the third world exclussively from the imperialist West
That the third world is inherently dependent upon the first world. That the poor countries have no control over themselves and are mere agents of colonial, neocolonial or imperialist power.
Obviously that's untrue
Although what must be recognized is that international capital is controlled by the first world and we are all (first, second and third worlds) dependent upon it to a given degree.

As for the OP, I believe he is correct.
It's the result of the greater wealth inequality found in most poor countries. The gap between the rich and poor is much greater here than in the US and Europe, for instance. The wealthy are consequently totally out of touch and generally bruttaly callous to the masses.

[Raúl Duke]

I came from a pretty international school and noticed that most of the international students were very openly elitist. More so than the average rich American or Westerner?

I really do not want to generalize any specific race of people as everyone is an individual but I did notice that a lot of Middle Eastern, Indian and Asians were more openly elitist than the American and European students. They all varied of course, and I did meet some snooty Europeans but for the most it was taboo to poke fun at downtrodden people. The new wealthy aristocracy of the third world though did not care about being that openly crass. I mean just watching Indian TV it made wonder just how they get away with some of their programming. It's so blatantly snobbish and pro-wealth. Some of that stuff would never get aired here in the States.

Point is, this dangerous addiction to wealth and luxury is penetrating all levels of society all around the world, even here in the US. I just don't want this unapologetic crass behavior to start dominating the US sphere too (even though it already is).

What makes it OK to do this sort of stuff in the third world? and how can we watch out for it here in the States?

That depends...my experience has gone both ways.

When I was in Miami many people from South America were very elitist, but this is due to the fact that they are from a very privileged and wealthy background having stuff like house maids and servants (and complaining that they no longer had any once they came to Miami).

In university, most international students were not much elitist (as a few white American students) and some were actually very knowledgeable and very concern about social issues.

[Luís Henrique]

I came from a pretty international school and noticed that most of the international students were very openly elitist. More so than the average rich American or Westerner?

I really do not want to generalize any specific race of people as everyone is an individual but I did notice that a lot of Middle Eastern, Indian and Asians were more openly elitist than the American and European students. They all varied of course, and I did meet some snooty Europeans but for the most it was taboo to poke fun at downtrodden people. The new wealthy aristocracy of the third world though did not care about being that openly crass. I mean just watching Indian TV it made wonder just how they get away with some of their programming. It's so blatantly snobbish and pro-wealth. Some of that stuff would never get aired here in the States.

Point is, this dangerous addiction to wealth and luxury is penetrating all levels of society all around the world, even here in the US. I just don't want this unapologetic crass behavior to start dominating the US sphere too (even though it already is).

What makes it OK to do this sort of stuff in the third world? and how can we watch out for it here in the States?

Could it possibly be that the American students in your school were just average (or slightly above average) American students, while the third world students were members of their countries' elites?

Luís Henrique

[Aeval]

Could it possibly be that the American students in your school were just average (or slightly above average) American students, while the third world students were members of their countries' elites?


Exactly. It's the same here; all the European students get grants and stuff off their home countries and a pretty substantial one off the EU so they come from a fairly broad cross-section of society (all the american students I've met have had a load of grants and stuff too), whereas people from non-EU countries don't get the EU grant and thus tend to be from wealthier (and in some cases incredibly wealthy) backgrounds. So they strut about the place in fancy clothes, flashing the cash and what not, but it's just two different groups of people, I bet if you compared them to wealthy westerners there wouldn't be that much difference.

[black magick hustla]

nah there is a difference. third world class hatred is much more intense. tbh, i think it has to do with the fact that in the first world, rich people like to give a sort of semblance about education while a lot of rich third worlders are just as crass as anybody else except that they drive hummers

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I came from a pretty international school and noticed that most of the international students were very openly elitist. More so than the average rich American or Westerner?

I really do not want to generalize any specific race of people as everyone is an individual but I did notice that a lot of Middle Eastern, Indian and Asians were more openly elitist than the American and European students. They all varied of course, and I did meet some snooty Europeans but for the most it was taboo to poke fun at downtrodden people. The new wealthy aristocracy of the third world though did not care about being that openly crass. I mean just watching Indian TV it made wonder just how they get away with some of their programming. It's so blatantly snobbish and pro-wealth. Some of that stuff would never get aired here in the States.

Point is, this dangerous addiction to wealth and luxury is penetrating all levels of society all around the world, even here in the US. I just don't want this unapologetic crass behavior to start dominating the US sphere too (even though it already is).

What makes it OK to do this sort of stuff in the third world? and how can we watch out for it here in the States?

There are a few reasons that come to mind, but they're only guesses and suggestions.

1. The international students were the elite in their home countries.
2. As Hiero said, the West generally has started to engage more with ''charity'' - often in a quite patronising and unrealistic way, IMO. Whereas there hasn't been a culture built up around giving because people had to think about themselves. In the UK we're more apologetic about what we have, and elitism can be fairly subtle.
3. As Hiero also said, a lot of developing countries are quite polarized in terms of who has the wealth and who doesn't. The differences between rich and poor are more marked, e.g. Brazil you can go from an affluent neighbourhood with mansions and skyscrapers to favelas - they're side-by-side.
4. If it's newly acquired wealth, then they'd be more likely to feel a sense of novelty and entitlement. It's something they didn't have before and now they might as well make the most of it.
5. They have an image of North America as being wealthy, so when they get there they feel as though they need to flaunt their wealth to keep up with (what they perceive to be) a richer country.

[(A)(_|]

Coming from a "third world country", I can say from experience and from being raised into a middle-class family that considering the limited resources/compared to the number of people we have here in Egypt and the fast integration of capitalism and material acceptation, the rich here feel insecure. The middle class know that it is their right to send their kids to descent schools and ensure they get good health coverage, so the ones working for multinational companies or owning small businesses send their kids to private schools considering public schools are shitty and minimally funded. They save up some money considering their kids would want to get married which requires that there be an apartment and furnishing which would mean they have to save up some more money. I wouldn't favor that people call this excess because education and health are everyone's rights and in a capitalist system, these "rights" are privileges for the ones that have money which would mean you had to submit to an unjust system if you wanted your kids to get their "rights". The poor, the working class already find themselves tangled up in mess and unfair circumstances, so have to settle for whatever they have and accept that these "rights" are privileges forcing them to deal with public schools and shitty health coverage. So as you can see, people's hopes or whatever hopes they might have of a fair and descent life are crossed out by rule of being born poor. As this phenomenon appears, the notion that "What I got is what I earned" gets very popular and the rich, the ones with the "privileges" get insecure to their bums that these "privileges" that account for a descent life might be taken from them; so this means they justify their material earnings with the myths such as "material satisfaction" which gives them a feeling of modesty and religious correctness. They send out some money to charity every now and then and believe very convincingly that "what they have is what they have earned". They lack basic knowledge about what an individual's rights are and feel it is not their problem that all that unfairness is suffered by someone other than them. This is where the individualistic sense comes from. The people I speak about the here are the the richest 20% in Egypt as statistics were published showing wealth distribution in Egypt to be 40% in the hands of 1% and another 40 to be in the hands of 19% and the 20% left to the remaining 80% which is -and I should note- shameful by the way.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What makes it OK to do this sort of stuff in the third world? and how can we watch out for it here in the States?

I don't see how the US or Europe are immune to this or any different. True, the fashion now of many American wealthy people is to downplay their wealth and wear (expensive designer) blue-jeans, sit in the front row at Stones concerts or Lakers games, but this is just the fashion of the post 1970s rich. Even our right-wing pundits who make arguments that the rich are better, smarter, and deserve to do whatever they want do this while talking up their "working class" backgrounds.

It's all part of the myth in America that there is no class and everyone has social mobility; in Europe it goes along with the myth that capitalism's problems and class-conflict can be smoothed over.

Maybe when conditions change, the US rich will once again go back to highlighting their wealth - I think it has a lot to do with worrying about how you are perceived. If you are rich and white from America or the UK, you probably have nothing to prove because people will hear your polished speaking and all that and not question your education, abilities, or worth. If you are from a poor country, there is probably more of a desire to distance yourself from the image of "backwardness" that people probably think of regarding the poor people in your country. In the US Victorian era, the US wealthy were very snobby and elitist because many came from poor-ish backgrounds and even if they didn't people thought American rich were uncouth backwoods folk that struck it rich in mining or cotton or something else. So the rich threw huge parties and indulged in everything they could. This went out of fashion with WWI, then back in a major way in the 20s with the rise of "consumer culture" and out again during the depression.