"And nowhere in the article does it say it's only trying to represent a small portion of the population". Not sure what you are talking about. The article clearly states that its talking about Qataris, who its states make up 10-15% of the population. If they wanted a representative sample of the country's population, they would have talked to the far more numerous Indians.
And are seriously suggesting this article will hurt Arab-US relations? Qataris do not represent all Arabs, and it is ridiculous to suggest this. Even the most naive of NY Time readers will hardly think that. When Americans think of Arabs, they are most likely to think of the millions of Arab-Americans, including the new Miss USA. If they think of overseas Arabs they are most likely to think of Iraqis and Palestinians. Even if they think of Gulf countries they will imagine Saudi Arabia and Dubai. An article about a bunch of spoilt rich lay-abouts who do not think that they are even in control of their own tiny country is not going to change American impression of Arabs as a whole.
Quit playing the race card, Olive, and lighten up. The cost of wealth, success, and entrance into the global domain for Qatar is that people will criticize it and poke of fun of it from time to time. Its the price of public exposure. The more defensive one is about it, the more likely it will happen again. Best just to ignore it if you don't like it. In a way Qataris should be flattered. The NY Times never would have even bothered to print anything about Qatar ten years ago.
bleu--The NY Times is hemorrhaging money like most print media in the US, so you could probably pick it up cheap. But it sounds like after the Chelsea Barracks fiasco, the sovereign fund will be looking for something more profitable to make up for losses! Hopefully Harrod's will work out. It could use a makeover, and I will be shopping there next week.
Olive--
"And nowhere in the article does it say it's only trying to represent a small portion of the population". Not sure what you are talking about. The article clearly states that its talking about Qataris, who its states make up 10-15% of the population. If they wanted a representative sample of the country's population, they would have talked to the far more numerous Indians.
And are seriously suggesting this article will hurt Arab-US relations? Qataris do not represent all Arabs, and it is ridiculous to suggest this. Even the most naive of NY Time readers will hardly think that. When Americans think of Arabs, they are most likely to think of the millions of Arab-Americans, including the new Miss USA. If they think of overseas Arabs they are most likely to think of Iraqis and Palestinians. Even if they think of Gulf countries they will imagine Saudi Arabia and Dubai. An article about a bunch of spoilt rich lay-abouts who do not think that they are even in control of their own tiny country is not going to change American impression of Arabs as a whole.
Quit playing the race card, Olive, and lighten up. The cost of wealth, success, and entrance into the global domain for Qatar is that people will criticize it and poke of fun of it from time to time. Its the price of public exposure. The more defensive one is about it, the more likely it will happen again. Best just to ignore it if you don't like it. In a way Qataris should be flattered. The NY Times never would have even bothered to print anything about Qatar ten years ago.
bleu--The NY Times is hemorrhaging money like most print media in the US, so you could probably pick it up cheap. But it sounds like after the Chelsea Barracks fiasco, the sovereign fund will be looking for something more profitable to make up for losses! Hopefully Harrod's will work out. It could use a makeover, and I will be shopping there next week.