“Nations and peoples can be part of the Third World (by definition) and still be oppressors and exploiters, however. Japan is the classic example of this reality. Several African countries are run by puppets of neo-colonialism and are a further example of this fact. And need we mention Roy Wilkins again, or Governor Ferre? or Chiang Kai-shek or Mobutu and on and on.
It would be a mistake, therefore, to think that the concept of the third world represents an ideology unto itself. When we use this term, it merely describes lands and peoples who have suffered the oppression and exploitation of colonialism.
What is the third world?
You cannot be neutral in the world today. There can be no fence straddlers. We are engaged in a war to the finish between the oppressed and the oppressors; between those who produce the wealth of the world and those who own it.”
Following a historical and geopolitical definition of the Third World, this section of What is the Third World? by the Third World Women’s Alliance (TWWA) exemplifies a number of clarifications, criticisms, and calls to action, through their careful use of rhetorical devices.
In this first paragraph, the TWWA clarifies a key point of understanding the Third World – that nations and people within this grouping can be oppressors. Situated in America, the TWWA alludes to the commonly understood example of Imperialist Japan, and then the more contemporary examples of African puppet-states propped up by colonial powers; these states concretely reflect the fickle nature of Third World peoples and nations as potential oppressors or exploiters. The TWWA also brings in contemporary examples closer to home – such as the NAACP’s Roy Wilkins, a proponent of American imperialism and staunch anticommunist.
Also noticeable is the TWWA’s employment of rhetorical questions, to affirm these guiding principles. “And need we mention Roy Wilkins again, or Governor Ferre?” or even the overarching question of “What is the third world?” The former of these questions is met with the TWWA’s affirmation that the Third World is not an ideology, but rather a term to describe and unify people and places oppressed specifically by colonialism in its various forms.
Further responses to the latter question lead to more direct affirmations and calls to action; the TWWA makes specific use of a language divided between “you” and “them”. “Some people use… They talk…” “… fence straddlers.” all make clear a distinction of an other which misappropriates the Third World and/or attempts to maintain neutrality. However, the TWWA counters this by using the pointed language of affirming “You cannot be neutral today.” “We are engaged in…”; their blunt and unforgiving language, especially in describing the danger and impossibility of neutrality, reflects the high stakes of revolutionary struggle. Lastly, the TWWA asserts its urgency by framing this struggle as “a war to the finish”.
In this brief section, the TWWA’s terse and confrontational rhetoric of questions, clarifications, counters, and calls to action make clear the definition of the Third World and its relation to their revolutionary struggle, as an international, cross-racial one, as rooted in class: “between those who produce the wealth of the world and those who own it.”
Thanks for this close reading! I think the literary devices and style of writing that you pointed out are important to acknowledge, especially if one is looking to do revolutionary work of this sort. I found this piece to be strong in the sense that it leaves an impression. Understanding how the TWWA wrote this piece is helpful for understanding how to write a piece that persuasively motivates people to take a stance. Those looking to do organizing or revolutionary work can learn a lot from the work of leaders and members of past movements. I think that, as you pointed out, the use of direct affirmations, creation of a divide between “you” and “them,” and direct references to the reader make this brief piece powerful.