The Nobel Peace Prize
Oct. 10th, 2009 03:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparkindarknessIn case you haven’t caught the news, Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize.
I can’t say I agree with it. I won’t say it’s an utterly awful idea - because I’m not privy to the thinking of the nice Nobel people. And there is some merit to using the award as a symbol.
The reason they give, that he represents hope, seems a little hollow. Giving the peace prize to people because they represent some kind of nebulous concept seems dubious at best. Especially since I’m not convinced he represents hope at all - OR peace for that matter.
That’s their public idea. I don’t know if it’s their main motivation. It may be a goad to try and hold him to his ambitions. It may be an expression of what they hope he’ll be. It may actually be an expression of relief that America has someone in power how is less... worthy of consternation. I don’t know - but I don’t think any of these reasons are very good ones.
Overall, I don’t think such vague hopes are good ideas for an award. Handing out the Nobel Peace Prize to people - to politicians especially! - who talk a good game, have some very nice speeches and ambitious (albeit vague) plans seems like a poor idea to me. Every politician have nice speeches and ambitious plans and they can all talk prettily when it suits them. If we start giving out prizes based on what they say they’re going to do, we’re going to need a whole lot more.
By all means, give Obama the peace prize - when he has actions to back his rhetoric. Rhetoric alone should not be the foundation here.
Now, that being said - Obama didn’t choose this. I highly doubted he nominated himself and of course he isn’t going to decline it (because that would be high disrespectful to a very prestigious award). This is not something Obama chose or arranged - so he can hardly be held responsible for it. It’s unfair and highly foolish to decide this is Obama’s fault or criticise HIM because of it.
Secondly - I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - criticism is good, but criticism that is just a vehicle for showing off your racism and general craziness is a bad bad thing. And yes there’ve been some doozies (positive discrimination? Really? Have you seen past winners of the award? And you think if they wanted to give the award to a PoC they’d have to make a dubious excuse for it? Liberal conspiracies? Oh my oh my the crazy keeps coming). When i first heard the news I cringed - not because I disagreed with the decision (though I do) but because I knew that there would be a truckload of crazies frothing at the mouth and just leaping on the opportunity to show their craziness and racism to the world. Again.
I can’t say I agree with it. I won’t say it’s an utterly awful idea - because I’m not privy to the thinking of the nice Nobel people. And there is some merit to using the award as a symbol.
The reason they give, that he represents hope, seems a little hollow. Giving the peace prize to people because they represent some kind of nebulous concept seems dubious at best. Especially since I’m not convinced he represents hope at all - OR peace for that matter.
That’s their public idea. I don’t know if it’s their main motivation. It may be a goad to try and hold him to his ambitions. It may be an expression of what they hope he’ll be. It may actually be an expression of relief that America has someone in power how is less... worthy of consternation. I don’t know - but I don’t think any of these reasons are very good ones.
Overall, I don’t think such vague hopes are good ideas for an award. Handing out the Nobel Peace Prize to people - to politicians especially! - who talk a good game, have some very nice speeches and ambitious (albeit vague) plans seems like a poor idea to me. Every politician have nice speeches and ambitious plans and they can all talk prettily when it suits them. If we start giving out prizes based on what they say they’re going to do, we’re going to need a whole lot more.
By all means, give Obama the peace prize - when he has actions to back his rhetoric. Rhetoric alone should not be the foundation here.
Now, that being said - Obama didn’t choose this. I highly doubted he nominated himself and of course he isn’t going to decline it (because that would be high disrespectful to a very prestigious award). This is not something Obama chose or arranged - so he can hardly be held responsible for it. It’s unfair and highly foolish to decide this is Obama’s fault or criticise HIM because of it.
Secondly - I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - criticism is good, but criticism that is just a vehicle for showing off your racism and general craziness is a bad bad thing. And yes there’ve been some doozies (positive discrimination? Really? Have you seen past winners of the award? And you think if they wanted to give the award to a PoC they’d have to make a dubious excuse for it? Liberal conspiracies? Oh my oh my the crazy keeps coming). When i first heard the news I cringed - not because I disagreed with the decision (though I do) but because I knew that there would be a truckload of crazies frothing at the mouth and just leaping on the opportunity to show their craziness and racism to the world. Again.