I'm not a huge expert on how the committee works, but the last few years they've explained that they want the prize to be not just of work already done, but supportive for people trying to change things. So I think this can be taken as the committee lending symbolical support to Obama.
That was nice of them, but surely we cannot discount the backlash he will face, both at home and abroad, for being awarded an honour prematurely. I can smell the right-wingers stirring up the Antichrist rumours already! And how would his usually credible left-wing supporters defend this?
Oh well, I suppose there have been several less deserving awardees in the past. :D
Yeah, the potential for backlash is clearly there. Though I cannot shake the notion that the anti-Obama league would find fault no matter what. When you declare someone to be the Antichrist/Hitler etc you're not exactly the most rational person to begin with.
I suppose there have been several less deserving awardees in the past. :D
Shall we say that among past award winners there are some interesting people? ;)
Seriously, I hadn't access to any news media this afternoon as I was cooped up in the Humanities lab, so when someone told me I thought it was a joke. I still do. Really. It must be.
But I can kind of sympathise with the idea that a prize should be some sort of symbolical support and a guidance for future work, but really, saying that you want to change things isn't enough. It's like the well-known Cylon plan. Cynical, moi?
*g* Actually my first response upon hearing the news was: "You're kidding?" And while I've come to accept that they were definitely not kidding, I cannot shake the feeling that perhaps it was a bit premature. I mean, why not wait until next year, and then give him the prize?
Cynical, moi?
Hee. Perhaps, but considering how political the Peace Prize has become I think a bit of scepticism is a good thing. To be more specific, I think it is a great thing to have a prize that rewards people working for a better world, but I think that for such a prize to be really valuable it must strive to be as apolitical as possible. Selecting someone like Obama (regardless of how great a person he might be) will be divisive simply because he is a political figure, and a rather prominent at that. Having a peace prize that actually increases the heat in a debate just seems to bring too much irony to the playing field
( ... )
Mmm, for me, it resonates much more to give the prize to Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank or someone like Hammarskjöld (though, giving a Peace Prize posthumously isn't really a guidance for the recipient as such. Of course, as a guidance for others...)
And yes, I think some sort of so-called apolitical level-headedness is a good guidance. I mean, of course we all have strong ideas about how we think life is and/or should be, but if we could all step away from the vitriol a wee bit...
And in reply to the comment on QoT's journal, well, erm, I wouldn't say that the Swedish Academy has been free from controversy. ;-)
Comments 13
(The comment has been removed)
I'm not a huge expert on how the committee works, but the last few years they've explained that they want the prize to be not just of work already done, but supportive for people trying to change things. So I think this can be taken as the committee lending symbolical support to Obama.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
if we needed proof that Obama is restoring a bit of goodwill in the world for us, after 8 years of shame? Done.
Hey, we've always loved you - we just felt a bit awkward saying it with all the Karl Rove's and Donald Rumsfeld's running around. ;P
But seriously, I cannot see this award as anything other than a huge political statement.
Reply
Reply
But as I said to lage_nom_ai above, I think it's to display international support tec.
Reply
Oh well, I suppose there have been several less deserving awardees in the past. :D
Reply
I suppose there have been several less deserving awardees in the past. :D
Shall we say that among past award winners there are some interesting people? ;)
Reply
But I can kind of sympathise with the idea that a prize should be some sort of symbolical support and a guidance for future work, but really, saying that you want to change things isn't enough. It's like the well-known Cylon plan. Cynical, moi?
Reply
Cynical, moi?
Hee. Perhaps, but considering how political the Peace Prize has become I think a bit of scepticism is a good thing. To be more specific, I think it is a great thing to have a prize that rewards people working for a better world, but I think that for such a prize to be really valuable it must strive to be as apolitical as possible. Selecting someone like Obama (regardless of how great a person he might be) will be divisive simply because he is a political figure, and a rather prominent at that. Having a peace prize that actually increases the heat in a debate just seems to bring too much irony to the playing field ( ... )
Reply
And yes, I think some sort of so-called apolitical level-headedness is a good guidance. I mean, of course we all have strong ideas about how we think life is and/or should be, but if we could all step away from the vitriol a wee bit...
And in reply to the comment on QoT's journal, well, erm, I wouldn't say that the Swedish Academy has been free from controversy. ;-)
Reply
Leave a comment