The Relatively Subtle and Liberal-Appearing Ethnocentrism of Some Western Media

[Debater Slayer]

Would it be a nice gesture to walk up to a woman, abd cover her face with a hijab?

The two are completely different. An equivalent for women would be gifting a female athlete a gold-adorned robe or dress, not a hijab. This is just a formal dress like a fancy suit or very expensive T-shirt and not a religious outfit.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Probably just an element of human nature.

I think it's just easier and more reflexive to empathize with people who we resemble, culturally and physically.

I don't think it has to do so much with any kind of intellectual value judgment so much as an immediate emotional reaction.

I think seeing something horrific happening to someone who looks like/dresses like/acts like one of your own friends, family or neighbors, and seeing it happening in a setting that resembles your own, is going to shake you more immediately then it would if you were watching the same thing happen to people who you don't feel like you have much in common with.

I think you can put it down to ideals verses instincts: at our core we're still basically tribal creatures. We were hunter-gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years. We've only been "civilized" for a few thousand. We've got a lot of hardwiring to overcome yet.

Of course the western media knows that. So do politicians.

I largely agree. Media outlets feed on outrage. It's one reason I'm glad I no longer have a TV.

 

[danieldemol]

@Debater Slayer do you have a third choice where you would fit in and have freedom?

 

[John53]

Yesterday, as Argentina captain Lionel Messi walked up to the podium to lift the World Cup trophy, Qatar's emir Tamim bin Hamad dressed him in the royal gold-adorned bisht, the formal dress in most Gulf countries, and gifted it to him. The Guardian, BBC host and ex-footballer Gary Lineker, and the Mirror, among others, criticized the gesture:



Mixed reaction as Lionel Messi draped in Arab cloak before lifting World Cup

For context, Gary Lineker defended the decision to host the World Cup in Russia just four years ago:

Gary Lineker on World Cup hosts Russia: the UK has no right to judge whether they deserve the tournament | Radio Times

The gifting of the royal dress to a guest is seen in Arab culture as one of the utmost displays of respect possible. It's like having someone in your home and giving them the thing you value most. Yes, Qatar is a country with major human rights issues, but the way in which multiple Western media outlets have been essentially nitpicking the smallest details and singling out the country for criticism, as Gary Lineker has done despite previously defending Russia's hosting of the tournament, has been as eye-opening as it has been unfortunate.

It wasn't even a year ago that multiple Western media outlets also demonstrated stark double standards in their coverage of the Ukraine war, with comments such as "this not Afghanistan or Iraq. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European country" from a CBS News correspondent. And he was far from the only one: between the coverage of the war, some Western powers' responses to it in contrast to their response to their own wars in the Middle East, and the markedly different reception of refugees based on where they come from, the coverage and response to the Ukraine War have also been sobering.

Many of these comments have not come from some far-right demagogues or religious extremists; they have been coming from all directions along the political spectrum, including from some supposedly liberal voices. It is one thing to criticize Qatar for its awful human rights record, but it is quite another to have a seemingly different set of standards for other countries with similar or even larger-scale abuses when they're not Arab. It is one thing to welcome Ukrainian refugees and point out how atrocious the Russian invasion has been, but it is quite another to minimize similar humanitarian crises elsewhere in the process.

As someone who has been seeking to immigrate for over a decade, I know that the human rights situation in practically the entire Arab world is overwhelmingly unsuitable for me. But this year has made me wonder just how much I would fit in elsewhere if I immigrated to a Western country.

I'm not sure what their problem is. I've seen international winners of sporting events in Australia presented with Akubra hats and I don't recall any criticism of that.

 

[sun rise]

What does, specifically?

To me specifically about the negative reaction to the gift of the bisht. I think the positive reaction from the regional media stating that the gift was a mark of respect is the key fact.

The negative reaction is thus culturally insensitive and a mark of having a thin skin about such differences.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

For me, the criticism of Qatar has largely missed the point. Do I think their human rights records deserve scrutiny and criticism? Yes. I have at least some inside knowledge of what goes on from my time in the construction industry, and that alone is enough to deserve scrutiny. And I would say the same about women's rights and LGBTQIA+.

But...that was the case before the World Cup, and will be the case after the World Cup, whilst the Western world's attention will simply wander off.

The body that deserves criticism in all of this is FIFA.

 

[Debater Slayer]

@Debater Slayer do you have a third choice where you would fit in and have freedom?

I don't know yet. I also don't know that I wouldn't fit in, say, Canada or Australia; I only question whether or not I would.

I wish I could stay and have stability and safety in my home region, but that's simply not possible at this time due to the current social and political situation, unfortunately.

 

[Debater Slayer]

For me, the criticism of Qatar has largely missed the point. Do I think their human rights records deserve scrutiny and criticism? Yes. I have at least some inside knowledge of what goes on from my time in the construction industry, and that alone is enough to deserve scrutiny. And I would say the same about women's rights and LGBTQIA+.

But...that was the case before the World Cup, and will be the case after the World Cup, whilst the Western world's attention will simply wander off.

The body that deserves criticism in all of this is FIFA.

I agree, although I also think the scrutiny has largely been inconsistent and selective. For example, the next World Cup will be jointly hosted by Canada, Mexico, and the US. Will we see the same level of outrage and scrutiny aimed at the numerous human rights issues in the US, including its abusive foreign policy? I suppose that might happen, and I'd love for my skepticism to be proven wrong, but only time will tell. The US has killed more innocent people in the last 20 years alone than Qatar has in its entire existence, and the US is also now on a trajectory that might see it reverse decades of legal progress concerning human rights. If anyone argues that the World Cup shouldn't have been held in Qatar, I don't see why a similar argument couldn't be made against holding it in the US.

It would have been much more reasonable for multiple media outlets and public figures to scrutinize Qatar's issues while also showing a baseline level of introspection and fairness. Many of them have overlooked almost all positives in the tournament that could have been highlighted along with the criticism and used to build bridges of reform. What we got instead was mostly a barrage of self-oblivious moralizing from the likes of Gary Lineker.

 

[Augustus]

An act of gifting a visiting player a part of the royal dress in a show of respect is hardly among the "worst features," too.

If you want to show respect you can do it privately after the ceremony. The ceremony for the winners is them representing their country, not having their country covered based on someone else's preference (and as they chose to do it publicly rather than privately there is a very good case it is basically "promotional material" in the guise of being respectful).

The greatest player of all time in a career defining moment should really get to decide if they wear their national kit or something else rather than having that decision forced on them by some governmental officials, with the options being massively disrespecting the hosts or going along with their personal whim.

For me it is not at all respectful as it makes the moment about them, not the player.

Unless they asked and were granted permission, I'd say it is disrespectful and inconsiderate to impose their preferences on such a key moment.

No idea about Messi, but if that were me, putting photos on my wall, I'd have to find ones without me wearing such a "respectful" gift.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree, although I also think the scrutiny has largely been inconsistent and selective. For example, the next World Cup will be jointly hosted by Canada, Mexico, and the US. Will we see the same level of outrage and scrutiny aimed at the numerous human rights issues in the US, including its abusive foreign policy?

Nope. But there might very well be a number of protests about all sorts of things. NFL games and NBA games have both had various protests over the past several years, with a range of reactions to those.
And the US is more oft-covered by journalists, frankly. The World Cup was the first time many in the west had even heard of kafala. You can certainly argue that this is an indictment on the West's attention and motivations...and I would completely agree with that. But if some of the worst cases of abuse that system is responsible for were occurring in the USA during the preparation for this next World Cup were to occur, what do you think the journalistic reaction to it would be?
If journalists were denied access to accommodation provided to workers under the kafala system, or were given access and then asked questions about the lack of hygiene, etc, what would the reaction be?

So, sure...the US has questions to answer, and always has. Foreign policy in particular is a tricky one not only for the US, but many wealthier nations.
But there is also an element of open discourse allowed for quite apart from the World Cup cycle.

I suppose that might happen, and I'd love for my skepticism to be proven wrong, but only time will tell. The US has killed more innocent people in the last 20 years alone than Qatar has in its entire existence, and the US is also now on a trajectory that might see it reverse decades of legal progress concerning human rights. If anyone argues that the World Cup shouldn't have been held in Qatar, I don't see why a similar argument couldn't be made against holding it in the US.

Really? Interesting. If I were to measure the relative freedom of citizens in both countries, that would be a key distinction. Now, is the US reversing in the wrong direction? In my estimation, most certainly. It is something that has engendered considerable debate, both domestically, and internationally already. It is something which has become a key election issue already. It is something which has led to protest, and some level of condemnation and direct action already.
That would be a key difference to Qatar.

It would have been much more reasonable for multiple media outlets and public figures to scrutinize Qatar's issues while also showing a baseline level of introspection and fairness. Many of them have overlooked almost all positives in the tournament that could have been highlighted along with the criticism and used to build bridges of reform. What we got instead was mostly a barrage of self-oblivious moralizing from the likes of Gary Lineker.

Well...if you're suggesting much of the Western media (particularly the mainstream media) are a bunch of shallow reactionaries who jump on bandwagons they don't even understand, you'll get no argument from me.
Some sports journalists are interesting for topics beyond the sports themselves. I'd put someone like Ethan Strauss in that category. But getting decent news and discussion from mainstream media on complex issues is very tough. Getting it from sports journalists? Phhht. Might as well ask a monkey how to drive.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you want to show respect you can do it privately after the ceremony. The ceremony for the winners is them representing their country, not having their country covered based on someone else's preference (and as they chose to do it publicly rather than privately there is a very good case it is basically "promotional material" in the guise of being respectful).

The greatest player of all time in a career defining moment should really get to decide if they wear their national kit or something else rather than having that decision forced on them by some governmental officials, with the options being massively disrespecting the hosts or going along with their personal whim.

For me it is not at all respectful as it makes the moment about them, not the player.

Unless they asked and were granted permission, I'd say it is disrespectful and inconsiderate to impose their preferences on such a key moment.

No idea about Messi, but if that were me, putting photos on my wall, I'd have to find ones without me wearing such a "respectful" gift.

A public display of respect is much more powerful than a private one, though, especially since Messi plays for a club owned by Qatar anyway. The emir of the host country showing the world that he respects the winning players seems to me a nice gesture, especially in light of the fact that many people were doubting whether Qatar would respect its visitors.

While I think your points about what the emir did are valid, I see no reason to conclude that the gesture was intended to be self-serving. I don't see that as impossible, but I also don't think we should conclude the worst intentions on the part of the emir without having any insight into his personal intentions at that moment. Maybe he just didn't calculate the act as carefully as we're doing right now, with the benefit of hindsight, which would be an oversight but not a malicious act.

I also believe that the criticism of the gesture from outlets like the BBC should be considered in light of the bigger picture, where they have been almost entirely negative in their coverage of the tournament and haven't seemed to make any effort to also highlight at least some of the positives and how they can encourage reform in Qatar and possibly in the surrounding region. In this context, it definitely looks like nitpicking and grasping at anything that can demonize Qatar's organization of the tournament instead of attempting to make constructive criticism while also acknowledging any good steps that have been taken toward reform.

Saudi Arabia has been trying to relax some of its most stringently conservative laws in recent years due to a desire to be viewed more positively on the global stage. While I have no doubt that the Saudi monarchs are doing this to serve their own interests and not out of the goodness of their hearts, it makes a solid case that entirely shunning a whole country doesn't help the most vulnerable groups there and instead just gives the governments nothing to lose in terms of their global image while abusing a subset of their country's citizens.

On the other hand, almost the whole world shuns North Korea, but that hasn't stopped its despotic leaders from abusing its population. It just means they don't even have to care about global criticism or relations when being despotic.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Nope. But there might very well be a number of protests about all sorts of things. NFL games and NBA games have both had various protests over the past several years, with a range of reactions to those.
And the US is more oft-covered by journalists, frankly. The World Cup was the first time many in the west had even heard of kafala. You can certainly argue that this is an indictment on the West's attention and motivations...and I would completely agree with that. But if some of the worst cases of abuse that system is responsible for were occurring in the USA during the preparation for this next World Cup were to occur, what do you think the journalistic reaction to it would be?
If journalists were denied access to accommodation provided to workers under the kafala system, or were given access and then asked questions about the lack of hygiene, etc, what would the reaction be?

So, sure...the US has questions to answer, and always has. Foreign policy in particular is a tricky one not only for the US, but many wealthier nations.
But there is also an element of open discourse allowed for quite apart from the World Cup cycle.

Really? Interesting. If I were to measure the relative freedom of citizens in both countries, that would be a key distinction. Now, is the US reversing in the wrong direction? In my estimation, most certainly. It is something that has engendered considerable debate, both domestically, and internationally already. It is something which has become a key election issue already. It is something which has led to protest, and some level of condemnation and direct action already.
That would be a key difference to Qatar.

I think it's entirely valid to criticize the conditions that many workers were forced to labor in during the construction of infrastructure for the World Cup, and this applies to any host country that forces workers to operate in poor conditions and not just Qatar. I'm not sure what the reaction would be if the US were in Qatar's shoes, but I would hope the media would be consistent and not be more lenient on such issues just because the host was the US.

But another thing that I think is important to note here is that a lot of the criticism has been much more comprehensive and inclusive of aspects beyond workers' rights. If the idea is that we should scrutinize any host country's human rights situation in general and not just the conditions under which it prepared for the tournament, then the generally higher amount of individual freedom in the US is only just one part of the equation. Qatar doesn't have a widespread gun-violence problem, for example, and we don't see many citizens dying due to lack of health insurance to the same extent as the US.

This is without touching on foreign policy at all and its significantly destructive effects on the lives of people in multiple other countries. I don't think domestic freedom gives a complete picture of a country's human rights situation when said country has routinely abused and killed hundreds of thousands of people overseas—whether directly or indirectly—over several decades. But even if we just zoom in on human rights at a domestic level, we have to consider the issues I listed above as well as things like the abortion bans in almost half of the US in addition to anything else that may result from rulings by the current conservative majority in the SCOTUS.

The idea that people should take for granted that the US or any other Western power is far superior to Qatar or other Middle Eastern countries by default in terms of human rights seems to me to largely depend on which aspects of human rights one focuses on. As a general rule, the US is definitely going to be better for, say, an openly atheist or LGBT person, at least on a legal level (so far, anyway). But in terms of something like health care, gun violence, or the barely livable minimum wages in a lot of states where many people are barely paid enough to even afford rent or food, the line becomes much blurrier.

Well...if you're suggesting much of the Western media (particularly the mainstream media) are a bunch of shallow reactionaries who jump on bandwagons they don't even understand, you'll get no argument from me.
Some sports journalists are interesting for topics beyond the sports themselves. I'd put someone like Ethan Strauss in that category. But getting decent news and discussion from mainstream media on complex issues is very tough. Getting it from sports journalists? Phhht. Might as well ask a monkey how to drive.

I completely agree. I'd also extend this to other celebrities and entertainers rather than just sportspeople or sports pundits. More people need to realize that being famous and talented in one area doesn't make a celebrity an authority in other areas of life such as politics and social issues.

 

[Augustus]

A public display of respect is much more powerful than a private one, though, especially since Messi plays for a club owned by Qatar anyway. The emir of the host country showing the world that he respects the winning players seems to me a nice gesture, especially in light of the fact that many people were doubting whether Qatar would respect its visitors.

While I think your points about what the emir did are valid, I see no reason to conclude that the gesture was intended to be self-serving. I don't see that as impossible, but I also don't think we should conclude the worst intentions on the part of the emir without having any insight into his personal intentions at that moment. Maybe he just didn't calculate the act as carefully as we're doing right now, with the benefit of hindsight, which would be an oversight but not a malicious act.

I also believe that the criticism of the gesture from outlets like the BBC should be considered in light of the bigger picture, where they have been almost entirely negative in their coverage of the tournament and haven't seemed to make any effort to also highlight at least some of the positives and how they can encourage reform in Qatar and possibly in the surrounding region. In this context, it definitely looks like nitpicking and grasping at anything that can demonize Qatar's organization of the tournament instead of attempting to make constructive criticism while also acknowledging any good steps that have been taken toward reform.

Saudi Arabia has been trying to relax some of its most stringently conservative laws in recent years due to a desire to be viewed more positively on the global stage. While I have no doubt that the Saudi monarchs are doing this to serve their own interests and not out of the goodness of their hearts, it makes a solid case that entirely shunning a whole country doesn't help the most vulnerable groups there and instead just gives the governments nothing to lose in terms of their global image while abusing a subset of their country's citizens.

On the other hand, almost the whole world shuns North Korea, but that hasn't stopped its despotic leaders from abusing its population. It just means they don't even have to care about global criticism or relations when being despotic.

While they can be a bit sanctimonious, the main reason there is criticism is not really Qatar's human rights record, it is that the cup going there was emblematic of the corruption of FIFA. A tiny country, with no football pedigree, that basically met none of the criteria to host the tournament was given it due to corruption (yes, most host nations have also engaged in corrupt practices, but none were quite as egregious as this).

If say Egypt had got the cup people would have embraced it as they generally do when it goes to somewhere new.

Then after awarding the cup to Qatar, they decided they needed to change the entire football season around it because it was unsafe to play in summer which further annoyed people as massive concessions had to be made based on the corrupt decision.

So many people will always think, no matter what they do it should never have been held there in the first place, and thus everything that can be criticised gets magnified as they don't start with the goodwill mos hosts get.

It may be a bit churlish, but it's more about this and much less about geopolitical imperatives.

Then, on top of this, you get the people who got to host the cup via underhand means messing up a genuinely iconic moment in football history, of course people will be annoyed about it.

So regardless of the intent, the result is that you have 2014 - The trophy being lifted by the German captain 2018- The trophy being lifted by the French captain and 2022 - in place of the trophy being lifted by the Argentina captain, the greatest player in history achieving his crowning glory in his final WC in one of the most iconic moments in football history, you get the trophy being lifted by a wizard surrounded by the Argentina team.

You have to admit is ruins the aesthetic