21 ms·

Joi Ito: Dubai bashing and 'what-aboutery'

22 points by ivankirigin 18y ago

endtime 18y ago
>The author of the article in The Independent defends his position and says that critics of his article are suffering from 'what-aboutery'. It's not a bad rebuttal, but I'm not sure the article was really intended to try to make things better for those oppressed workers, but rather just to piss on Dubai some more along with everyone else. No, the article was written with the intent of self-defense from fallacious criticism. >I don't want to sound too defensive about Dubai or the Middle East in general, but one thing I've learned from my still brief time is that it's much more complicated than it appears. Just calling Muslim law and governance "medieval" and writing it off is ignorant. It's not ignorant at all. Most of the people I've heard say that have a very thorough understanding of Sharia. There are many other such examples that I can't really be bothered to list. Simply, this article is not objective.
- raheemm 18y ago
  I think "Dubai bashing" is in style now. This is not to say that the problems there are illegitimate. BUT, simply bashing everything about Dubai is not a fair analysis either. There are some great things about Dubai such as a relatively progressive social attitudes, capitalism, entrepreneurship, boldness of vision, etc.
  - inerte 18y ago
    Indeed, there are good things in Dubai, but what about the bad stuff?
  - mahmud 18y ago
    Don't worry, it's just Western hypocrisy. Dubai is just another fiefdom with oil that hired some good PR agencies and did a few things that pleased "the West." Sure. However, Western patience only goes so far. They will ignore your crimes as long as it profits them, but as soon as they start to lose money they will notice how "barbaric" and "backward" you are. Dubai is a victim of the economic crisis, and people have lost money there, including many Westerners. The people advocating for labor rights in Dubai are not friends of the working man. They're the same carpet-bagging finance parasites that got us into this mess. If their revolutionary spirit and humane conscious suddenly spring to life, it's only because Dubai represents the oriental Other, and with the collapse of its economy the last chord of Western loyalty to its petrodollar was cut and the Western Man is free to attack it, waving Human Rights as a banner. The Western Man can slap a Human Rights bumper sticker on a missile and sleep happy at night, knowing he is delivering his Way of Life to whoever is on the receiving end (the survivors can always accept democracy :-) Read up on what they wrote on Hong Kong in the middle of last decade; the handover to China coincided with the Asian financial crisis and Western media went full out racist and sinophobic. A decade later they were all friends of China and singing its praises, until China crashed itself and now they're decrying China holding so much T-bills. [Edit: Oh, silent disapproval ;-]
    - jan_g 18y ago
      >If their revolutionary spirit and humane conscious suddenly spring to life, it's only because Dubai represents the oriental Other This is not exactly correct. There's nothing sudden about Dubai criticism (foreign worker exploitation, etc.). The criticism existed for a decade, at the very least. It is true however, that many people are ignorant and weren't aware of "Dubai issue" until now that it's gone mainstream in journalism.
      - mahmud 18y ago
        "The criticism existed for a decade, at the very least. It is true however, that many people are ignorant and weren't aware of "Dubai issue" until now that it's gone mainstream in journalism." If "Dubai's issue" has been known for at least a decade, then why did Western dignitaries, businessmen and the collective Judeo-Christian/Capitalist/Democratic/Western/etc elite decide to ignore, and instead choose to buy homes in artificial islands, shop, work, ski and golf in the "gulf paradise" that was apparently built with "slave South Asian labor"? To this day, it's the White Man that's edging the colored laborers in terms of pay: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/research/salary-survey-report-2009/feature/548493-brit-expats-earn-double-that-of-indian-counterparts http://www.arabianbusiness.com/research/salary-survey-report... It's only when the paycheck bounces that the Westerner comes to realize the error of his ways and cries "Equalité". To this day, Google, the darling of your new economy and entrepreneurial spirit is trying to get sponsored by Dubai police to filter their search results: http://www.ameinfo.com/192326.html http://www.ameinfo.com/192326.html That's your "Do No Evil". Your words, as Westerners, are worth nothing. Pathetic. [Edit: and yes, I would _love_ to get some disagreeing remarks, along with the obligatory head-in-the-sand down vote. I can't wait to tear someone's feel-good opposition a new one. Hypocrisy has no leg to stand on, and I am more than happy to show you Western hypocrisy crawl on its belly like the wet, spineless worm it is.]
        sho 18y ago
        No, don't hold back Mahmud, tell us what you really think ..
- frossie 18y ago
  It certainly is a strange response, isn't it - he essentially finds fault with the journalist for not being an activist and organising a campaign. It is not a journalists's role to oragnise campaigns; it is to inform the public. If the public is then roused to a campaign, so much the better. I also find the account of the waiting lists for whatever fashionable bar rather distasteful given the context. Look, I haven't been to Dubai. I don't know whether the Independent piece was a valid description of the society or not. But the kind of rebuttals I have seen are unconvincing. What kind of rebuttal would I find convincing? Some of the Westerners that live there saying "I have a maid. She holds her own passport. She is paid a living wage. Her working conditions are hard but not inhumane". Or: "I am a contractor working in Dubai. All my workers hold their own passports. We have these and these arrangements to ensure they are not asked to work in 50 degree heat". There is no reason to make this into a religious issue; the article was far more critical (in my eyes) of the Westerners that flock to Dubai than of the local population. Having read that piece I assure you I would much rather be stuck in an elevator with a UAE native rather than any of those shallow, vapid Brits that were described.
scrame 18y ago
What strikes me as odd about this article is that it is supposed to address "what-aboutery", but instead the whole article is nothing but "what-aboutery": " That's why Japan needs to speak up about Burma, the Chinese need to speak up about Africa and Americans about things like Guantanamo Bay. " Nothing about the original article, or the "how to spot a lame argument" are addressed, instead the original author is accused of just "finger wagging" and looking for an excuse to "piss on Dubai". He seems to utterly miss the point of the article he is responding to: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-har...
- wyclif 18y ago
  I found this comment of Joi's from his post very, very telling: I was impressed most by the Palestinians who were trying to cause change in Palestine and the Israelis who were trying to change the way Israelis think. So there is no possibility of Palestinians/Israelis changing the way Palestinians think?
sbt 18y ago
I think this post raises an important more general point: that countries are often held to different standards when it comes to human rights abuses. Take Dubai as an example. It's clear that very serious human rights offenses are going on in the country and that specific classes of foreign workers are treated unfairly. But do we really hold Congo to the same standards, where 45,000 are killed in warfare every month? Certainly, the same offenses are going on in many countries around the world. People in Europe have been talking about an embargo on Israel similar to the South African apartheid embargo. But are countries that are committing similar offenses and worse held to the same standards?
ZeroGravitas 18y ago
This is another example of what-aboutery, but relevant I think: Anyone remember the guy who testified to congress that the US Embassy in Iraq was being built with the exact same kind of slave labor as is apparently common in Dubai? His testimony: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070726115247.pdf http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070726115247.pdf quote: "My statement will address labor abuse, human trafficking, and other concerning issues that I personally witnessed at the construction site of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad" Another source, with a similar story. http://www.antiwar.com/ips/phinney.php?articleid=9919 http://www.antiwar.com/ips/phinney.php?articleid=9919

22 points by ivankirigin 18y ago

>The author of the article in The Independent defends his position and says that critics of his article are suffering from 'what-aboutery'. It's not a bad rebuttal, but I'm not sure the article was really intended to try to make things better for those oppressed workers, but rather just to piss on Dubai some more along with everyone else. No, the article was written with the intent of self-defense from fallacious criticism. >I don't want to sound too defensive about Dubai or the Middle East in general, but one thing I've learned from my still brief time is that it's much more complicated than it appears. Just calling Muslim law and governance "medieval" and writing it off is ignorant. It's not ignorant at all. Most of the people I've heard say that have a very thorough understanding of Sharia. There are many other such examples that I can't really be bothered to list. Simply, this article is not objective.

raheemm 18y ago
I think "Dubai bashing" is in style now. This is not to say that the problems there are illegitimate. BUT, simply bashing everything about Dubai is not a fair analysis either. There are some great things about Dubai such as a relatively progressive social attitudes, capitalism, entrepreneurship, boldness of vision, etc.
- inerte 18y ago
  Indeed, there are good things in Dubai, but what about the bad stuff?
- mahmud 18y ago
  Don't worry, it's just Western hypocrisy. Dubai is just another fiefdom with oil that hired some good PR agencies and did a few things that pleased "the West." Sure. However, Western patience only goes so far. They will ignore your crimes as long as it profits them, but as soon as they start to lose money they will notice how "barbaric" and "backward" you are. Dubai is a victim of the economic crisis, and people have lost money there, including many Westerners. The people advocating for labor rights in Dubai are not friends of the working man. They're the same carpet-bagging finance parasites that got us into this mess. If their revolutionary spirit and humane conscious suddenly spring to life, it's only because Dubai represents the oriental Other, and with the collapse of its economy the last chord of Western loyalty to its petrodollar was cut and the Western Man is free to attack it, waving Human Rights as a banner. The Western Man can slap a Human Rights bumper sticker on a missile and sleep happy at night, knowing he is delivering his Way of Life to whoever is on the receiving end (the survivors can always accept democracy :-) Read up on what they wrote on Hong Kong in the middle of last decade; the handover to China coincided with the Asian financial crisis and Western media went full out racist and sinophobic. A decade later they were all friends of China and singing its praises, until China crashed itself and now they're decrying China holding so much T-bills. [Edit: Oh, silent disapproval ;-]
  - jan_g 18y ago
    >If their revolutionary spirit and humane conscious suddenly spring to life, it's only because Dubai represents the oriental Other This is not exactly correct. There's nothing sudden about Dubai criticism (foreign worker exploitation, etc.). The criticism existed for a decade, at the very least. It is true however, that many people are ignorant and weren't aware of "Dubai issue" until now that it's gone mainstream in journalism.
    - mahmud 18y ago
      "The criticism existed for a decade, at the very least. It is true however, that many people are ignorant and weren't aware of "Dubai issue" until now that it's gone mainstream in journalism." If "Dubai's issue" has been known for at least a decade, then why did Western dignitaries, businessmen and the collective Judeo-Christian/Capitalist/Democratic/Western/etc elite decide to ignore, and instead choose to buy homes in artificial islands, shop, work, ski and golf in the "gulf paradise" that was apparently built with "slave South Asian labor"? To this day, it's the White Man that's edging the colored laborers in terms of pay: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/research/salary-survey-report-2009/feature/548493-brit-expats-earn-double-that-of-indian-counterparts http://www.arabianbusiness.com/research/salary-survey-report... It's only when the paycheck bounces that the Westerner comes to realize the error of his ways and cries "Equalité". To this day, Google, the darling of your new economy and entrepreneurial spirit is trying to get sponsored by Dubai police to filter their search results: http://www.ameinfo.com/192326.html http://www.ameinfo.com/192326.html That's your "Do No Evil". Your words, as Westerners, are worth nothing. Pathetic. [Edit: and yes, I would _love_ to get some disagreeing remarks, along with the obligatory head-in-the-sand down vote. I can't wait to tear someone's feel-good opposition a new one. Hypocrisy has no leg to stand on, and I am more than happy to show you Western hypocrisy crawl on its belly like the wet, spineless worm it is.]
      - sho 18y ago
        No, don't hold back Mahmud, tell us what you really think ..
frossie 18y ago
It certainly is a strange response, isn't it - he essentially finds fault with the journalist for not being an activist and organising a campaign. It is not a journalists's role to oragnise campaigns; it is to inform the public. If the public is then roused to a campaign, so much the better. I also find the account of the waiting lists for whatever fashionable bar rather distasteful given the context. Look, I haven't been to Dubai. I don't know whether the Independent piece was a valid description of the society or not. But the kind of rebuttals I have seen are unconvincing. What kind of rebuttal would I find convincing? Some of the Westerners that live there saying "I have a maid. She holds her own passport. She is paid a living wage. Her working conditions are hard but not inhumane". Or: "I am a contractor working in Dubai. All my workers hold their own passports. We have these and these arrangements to ensure they are not asked to work in 50 degree heat". There is no reason to make this into a religious issue; the article was far more critical (in my eyes) of the Westerners that flock to Dubai than of the local population. Having read that piece I assure you I would much rather be stuck in an elevator with a UAE native rather than any of those shallow, vapid Brits that were described.

scrame 18y ago

What strikes me as odd about this article is that it is supposed to address "what-aboutery", but instead the whole article is nothing but "what-aboutery": " That's why Japan needs to speak up about Burma, the Chinese need to speak up about Africa and Americans about things like Guantanamo Bay. " Nothing about the original article, or the "how to spot a lame argument" are addressed, instead the original author is accused of just "finger wagging" and looking for an excuse to "piss on Dubai". He seems to utterly miss the point of the article he is responding to: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-har...

wyclif 18y ago
I found this comment of Joi's from his post very, very telling: I was impressed most by the Palestinians who were trying to cause change in Palestine and the Israelis who were trying to change the way Israelis think. So there is no possibility of Palestinians/Israelis changing the way Palestinians think?

sbt 18y ago

I think this post raises an important more general point: that countries are often held to different standards when it comes to human rights abuses. Take Dubai as an example. It's clear that very serious human rights offenses are going on in the country and that specific classes of foreign workers are treated unfairly. But do we really hold Congo to the same standards, where 45,000 are killed in warfare every month? Certainly, the same offenses are going on in many countries around the world. People in Europe have been talking about an embargo on Israel similar to the South African apartheid embargo. But are countries that are committing similar offenses and worse held to the same standards?

ZeroGravitas 18y ago

This is another example of what-aboutery, but relevant I think: Anyone remember the guy who testified to congress that the US Embassy in Iraq was being built with the exact same kind of slave labor as is apparently common in Dubai? His testimony: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070726115247.pdf http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070726115247.pdf quote: "My statement will address labor abuse, human trafficking, and other concerning issues that I personally witnessed at the construction site of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad" Another source, with a similar story. http://www.antiwar.com/ips/phinney.php?articleid=9919 http://www.antiwar.com/ips/phinney.php?articleid=9919