|
Abstract
|
The practice and vocabulary of global health and global development today have their origins in racism and colonialism, which has created a false hierarchy among nations, ascribed a higher value to some lives, and allowed some groups to extract, exploit and subjugate others.1-4
The persistent echoes of these origins are seen everywhere, particularly in the way we use terms that classify countries and people: rich versus poor nations; resource-rich versus resource-limited settings; First versus Third World; Old versus New World; developed versus developing countries; high-income countries (HICs) versus low/middle-income countries (LMICs); global North versus global South; beneficiaries versus donors; white versus Black Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) and so on (see Table 1).
The terms 'global' or its much-used counterpart 'international' imply a world outside rich nations (often seen as the epicentre of everything progressive and 'good'); a world which needs development or health assistance. The fact that these implicit connotations are largely unchallenged in most global health and global development institutions in HICs itself is worrisome and illustrates how both these sectors continue to be steeped in white supremacy and saviorism.2 Even terms originally coined without a connotation of hierarchy, such as global North versus global South (or West vs East), end up implying hierarchies given these divisions are based on access to wealth and political power.
The temptation to categorise and dichotomise is very powerful and pervasive. All of us have used some of these terms at some point in our professions and activities. Some terms such as the now defunct 'First World vs Third World' imply racism in terms of hierarchy; the notion that some are first and others behind.5 Most people today avoid them, but Western media for instance, continue to use them every now and then, as we have seen most …
Language: en |