Well, I do think that irritating anonymous dude brought up an interesting point. EVERY time I say something critical of Qatar, someone accuses me of being a greedy bastard who only came here to take advantage of Qatar's riches. Why do Qataris assume that I wouldn't live here unless bribed? We don't assume that about people who move to Thailand or Italy.
"Frankly the 'insight' that Marjorie so kindly offered (as if she were a Colonial master) is irrelevant."
OK, let's recap. You said, "I challenge anyone to refute that Qataris are, on balance, welcoming and respectful to their guests." I responded that Qatar is NOT on balance welcoming and respectful to immigrant laborers, as evidenced by the lack of legal protections for these laborers (e.g., no minimum wage, no labor law for housemaids, the exit visa system, the fact that abusing or killing a maid results in tiny penalties if any, etc.).
Instead of counterarguing against any of this, you instead respond that I can't ever understand your culture, that my views are those of a colonial master, and anything I have to say is irrelevant because I have the wrong passport, or wrong genes, or something.
That is not a counterargument. You can't challenge someone to refute a point and then tell them their refutation is irrelevant because "you just can't understand us." That's a total cop-out. As another commenter has noted, if we really accepted that premise, then no non-Israeli would ever be able to say "Israeli checkpoints are bad" and no non-American would ever be able to say "Huh, maybe Bush shouldn't have bombed the fuck out of Iraq after all." Is that seriously what you're suggesting? It's difficult for me to believe that you really hold such a nihilist viewpoint on the possibility of crosscultural communication. (For starters, if you really believed that, you wouldn't bother posting anything here at all, because I could never learn anything from you.)
Re: Infantile NY Times
"Frankly the 'insight' that Marjorie so kindly offered (as if she were a Colonial master) is irrelevant."
OK, let's recap. You said, "I challenge anyone to refute that Qataris are, on balance, welcoming and respectful to their guests." I responded that Qatar is NOT on balance welcoming and respectful to immigrant laborers, as evidenced by the lack of legal protections for these laborers (e.g., no minimum wage, no labor law for housemaids, the exit visa system, the fact that abusing or killing a maid results in tiny penalties if any, etc.).
Instead of counterarguing against any of this, you instead respond that I can't ever understand your culture, that my views are those of a colonial master, and anything I have to say is irrelevant because I have the wrong passport, or wrong genes, or something.
That is not a counterargument. You can't challenge someone to refute a point and then tell them their refutation is irrelevant because "you just can't understand us." That's a total cop-out. As another commenter has noted, if we really accepted that premise, then no non-Israeli would ever be able to say "Israeli checkpoints are bad" and no non-American would ever be able to say "Huh, maybe Bush shouldn't have bombed the fuck out of Iraq after all." Is that seriously what you're suggesting? It's difficult for me to believe that you really hold such a nihilist viewpoint on the possibility of crosscultural communication. (For starters, if you really believed that, you wouldn't bother posting anything here at all, because I could never learn anything from you.)