Tom Friedman and the Dubai ports issue
So it all started with Dubya announcing that a Dubai company was all lined up to take over handling certain (non-security-related) functions in US ports. Then, because of a huge hulabaloo caused by the Dems in Congress citing "security concerns," the company itself backed out of the deal, leading to speculation that this would worsen US-MidEast relations.
Tom Friedman in his March 15th NYT column, wrote that
Firstly, I'm fairly sure given the large numbers of Indians emigrating to Dubai, that "Asian" means Indian, or at least, South Asian. Secondly, while I am in no way condoning this behavior, I do believe that it's a reaction to some form of oppression on a minority population. Working on anecdotal evidence from friends who are/were there, I understand that Indians are not treated on an equal standing in that society. This is not the first time that an oppressed minority has reacted violently. And certainly, a minority riot is no standard by which to judge how a company would do its job. I mean, if that were the case then we shouldn't be doing any business with American or French firms.
I do still think that these here, fine United States are still the best place in the world to be a foreigner and/or a minority. But sometimes it looks like Americans are just flailing their hands about in the dark and everyone (both, those who should and those who shouldn't) are getting hit by them. It's disappointing.
Tom Friedman in his March 15th NYT column, wrote that
What is so crazy about the Dubai ports issue is that Dubai is precisely the sort of decent, modernizing model we should be trying to nurture in the Arab-Muslim world. But we've never really had an honest discussion about either the real problems out there or the real solutions, have we?Now today, an article in The Plank, TNR's blog, Martin Peretz says that Tom Friedman was wrong about Dubai, by citing an article about Asian workers in Dubai rioting from the NYT:
Some 2,500 Asian workers angered by what they described as low salaries and mistreatment smashed cars and offices in a riot on Tuesday evening that interrupted construction on the Burj Dubai, meant to be the world's tallest skyscraper. ... In sympathy, thousands of laborers building a terminal at Dubai International Airport also laid down their tools.
Firstly, I'm fairly sure given the large numbers of Indians emigrating to Dubai, that "Asian" means Indian, or at least, South Asian. Secondly, while I am in no way condoning this behavior, I do believe that it's a reaction to some form of oppression on a minority population. Working on anecdotal evidence from friends who are/were there, I understand that Indians are not treated on an equal standing in that society. This is not the first time that an oppressed minority has reacted violently. And certainly, a minority riot is no standard by which to judge how a company would do its job. I mean, if that were the case then we shouldn't be doing any business with American or French firms.
I do still think that these here, fine United States are still the best place in the world to be a foreigner and/or a minority. But sometimes it looks like Americans are just flailing their hands about in the dark and everyone (both, those who should and those who shouldn't) are getting hit by them. It's disappointing.
posted by The Intellectual Masturbater | 3:23 PM
2 Comments:
I don't like Thomas Friedman. I think he's totally biased. I remember him on Oprah, talking about his book pre-Iraq war, "Longitudes and Attitudes" I think it was called, and he was a war-mongering journo, hiding behind intellectual credibility. Neither do I like Bernard Lewis, who is another worst type of Orientalist, who writes a book like "What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, (2002)." What went WRONG? What went WRONG? And why is Islam "clashing" with Modernity? Does that mean that Islam and Modernity are on two opposite sides? Is he then saying that Islam is "primitive" as opposed to "modern"? And what the HELL is Modernity anyway? Nation-states? Christianity? Are we saying that Islam got stuck somewhere in the medieval period, and is therefore not considered a "modern" religion? Or what? Like, what the hell is his basis of comparison, you know? Pure paff, if you ask me.
Well - agreed that Friedman supported the war, but I do think that he made a good case for it. See here:
http://intellectualmasturbater.blogspot.com/2006/02/thomas-friedman-on-iraq-war.html
Also, I haven't read (or heard of, for that matter) Bernard Lewis, but there is always the underlying notion that "we are better" when it comes to the "west."
Incidentally, have you seen this post of mine? Also about Friedman:
http://intellectualmasturbater.blogspot.com/2006/03/friedman-does-it-again.html
Then again, I'm a Friedman fan, so I may be a little biased...;)
Post a Comment
<< Home