Usually when people talk about countries, there's these terms: "Developed" or "Developing". Or maybe in some cases, "in development". I think that phrasing alone is kinda odd. Because for something to be refered to as "developing" is to assume there's a process of something going on. When in reality, a lot of these countries won't get better and they're not being improved by either their own governments or help from the outside.
The term "Developing" gives a sense of false hope, like lying to a kid with leukemia and making it seem like he'll live up to 40 at least. You see countries with starving populations but the label "Developing" makes it sound like "don't worry, in a few years, they'll have a couple more McDonalds and Burger Kings so they'll be fed in no time".
One country that's often shown as an example that went from "Developed" to "Developing" was Argentina. So if anything, the term "Developing" feels backwards. Because in a way, "this country is IN development" gives a sense of false hope and makes people care less than they should.
And then there's the debate of whether or not "developed" countries are any better and all, specially given the current climate of America and Europe but still. My point is moreso when someone with a Google Alegria promo brand material talks about how "these countries are developing :)" in a way that undermines the problems and makes it sound more offensive than they realize.
People think saying "underdeveloped" sounds like something only said by racist white people but it might actually paint a dark reality of how bad things are in other places. You don't "sugarcoat" it, as some say. "In development/Developing" might as well be the original "unalive".
