Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize for ...?
I just heard the news. I don't get it, I confess. Though, there have been disagreeable and contentious Nobels before - especially in economics, which is actually separate from the "real" Nobel family (hence why a bunch of neo-liberal econo-twits always award it to neo-liberal bastards - yes I'm exaggerating but seriously, Milton Friedman?? He's right up there with Hitler as far as I'm concerned - if not worse).
I have to agree with the criticisms floating around: you shouldn't really win a Peace award for peace intentions, rather than actions. I think Obama will, or could, do much and go far - but he hasn't yet. It sets a dangerous precedent - not that it's a dangerous award, but I have noticed that when dodgy people win these awards it suddenly cancels out all the crap. You hear "so-and-so won the Nobel so of course he's doing good!" (Let's face it, the winners are usually men.)
But it does lead to the next question: if someone won for their peaceful intentions, is there absolutely no one around who's doing peaceful actions? Perhaps it speaks to a new "world stage", to use a cliche. Grand visions, hope, on a global scale, rather than someone doing "good" on a micro scale. That is, observable deeds with real results that really affect the people on the ground, who live it every day. What about the fisherpeople of Thailand who peacefully reclaimed and negotiated for their land, rebuilding through their own efforts after the tsunami and proving that people can help themselves, that they can fight big business and government plans to turn their ancestral lands into expensive resorts for rich white people? Granted, I don't think the award has ever been given to a group, but there again is a flaw in its heirarchical, surperior nature.
This whole thing makes me cynical about everyone else, about us all - Is Obama the best of us? Are our world leaders so awful and corrupt (in many cases, yes), that a man who's been in power for only 9 months wins a prize like this even though he hasn't actually achieved any of his goals yet?
Just what kind of world do we live in, anyway? A f***ed up one I tend to think.
I have to agree with the criticisms floating around: you shouldn't really win a Peace award for peace intentions, rather than actions. I think Obama will, or could, do much and go far - but he hasn't yet. It sets a dangerous precedent - not that it's a dangerous award, but I have noticed that when dodgy people win these awards it suddenly cancels out all the crap. You hear "so-and-so won the Nobel so of course he's doing good!" (Let's face it, the winners are usually men.)
But it does lead to the next question: if someone won for their peaceful intentions, is there absolutely no one around who's doing peaceful actions? Perhaps it speaks to a new "world stage", to use a cliche. Grand visions, hope, on a global scale, rather than someone doing "good" on a micro scale. That is, observable deeds with real results that really affect the people on the ground, who live it every day. What about the fisherpeople of Thailand who peacefully reclaimed and negotiated for their land, rebuilding through their own efforts after the tsunami and proving that people can help themselves, that they can fight big business and government plans to turn their ancestral lands into expensive resorts for rich white people? Granted, I don't think the award has ever been given to a group, but there again is a flaw in its heirarchical, surperior nature.
This whole thing makes me cynical about everyone else, about us all - Is Obama the best of us? Are our world leaders so awful and corrupt (in many cases, yes), that a man who's been in power for only 9 months wins a prize like this even though he hasn't actually achieved any of his goals yet?
Just what kind of world do we live in, anyway? A f***ed up one I tend to think.