> To you, sure, the term is not as useful. But to the people involved in academia and politics, the jargon is useful.
In what way exactly is "Global South" more useful than "3rd World" to "people involved in academia and politics"?
Sometimes jargon is necessary, but sometimes it's just fashion.
Also, in no way is jargon fixed. If I recall correctly, hundreds of bird species are slated to be officially renamed for political reasons. And just look at how many jargon terms there have been "in academia and politics" for Americans descended from Africans: negro, black, African-American, Black, etc. I see no good reason why a foolish term like "Global South" can't be abolished as well, for reasons of clarity.
I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's not the same as "developing" or "third world". It's a set of countries with a unique set of characteristics that happen to mostly fall into the south. If you've got a better name, I'm sure folks would love to hear one.
In what way exactly is "Global South" more useful than "3rd World" to "people involved in academia and politics"?
Sometimes jargon is necessary, but sometimes it's just fashion.
Also, in no way is jargon fixed. If I recall correctly, hundreds of bird species are slated to be officially renamed for political reasons. And just look at how many jargon terms there have been "in academia and politics" for Americans descended from Africans: negro, black, African-American, Black, etc. I see no good reason why a foolish term like "Global South" can't be abolished as well, for reasons of clarity.