Most labels are misleading sometimes grossly so. Find new ones in 2010

 

Remember the Levant? Or the Old Dominions, the Trucial States and the Far East? If so, speak softly. Labels are handy way of sorting out countries by history or geography. But lazily conceived and out of date ones are offensive and misleading.

Some reek of colonialism (“Black Africa”) or lingering imperialism (the near abroad”, Russians` term for the former Soviet empire). Sheer diversity makes “Eastern Europe” an unhelpful way of talking about the ex-communist countries. Donald Rumsfeld`s description of anti-American “Old Europe” and pro-American “New Europe” was vivid but equally wide of the mark: Atlanticism and opposition to it are present on both sides of the old Iron Curtain.

The “Far East”, as East Asia used to be called, is indeed far away from Europe but quite nearby for people who live there. “Near East” is still used in American diplomatic parlance, and the “Middle East” is a quotidian term, perhaps because people like to be central. The “Muslim world” and the “Arab world” are sometimes used as near synonyms. But not all Arabs are Muslims, and most Muslims are not Arabs: Indonesia is the world`s largest Muslim country; Russia`s 9m-odd Muslims outnumber Lebanese and Libyans combined.

The “White Commonwealth” used to mean Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. But their original inhabitants were not white, and their populations are increasingly multicoloured. English-speakers in India

outnumbered the combined total in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which we were recently upbraided for calling the “English-speaking Commonwealth”. “Latin” America is another colonial invention, one that is disdained by Brazil, the regional power today.

It makes even less sense to speak of the “south” as shorthand for the planet`s poor countries (what about Australia or Singapore?) or of the “West” as synonymous with industrialisation and political freedom — what`s “western” about Japan? “Third World” dates from the Cold War when the planet had capitalist “First” and communist “Second” compartments. Its most recent replacement, “emerging economies”, already seems out of date, as some erstwhile star performers, such as Argentina, submerge. And the term unhelpfully lumps together hardworking manufacturers (Vietnam, say) and service-based economies (Dubai) with those blessed — or perhaps cursed — by natural resources (Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia). Nor do the countries of the “rich world” have much in common: Canada and Kuwait, with similar income levels, could hardly be more different.