Contact
Subscribe


He Didn't Earn It. He Should Return It.

Oct 9, 2009
By .
Politics & Current Events

If Barack Obama wishes to be judged on his own merits, as a politician and a President, rather than as the Norwegian committee's "magic negro," he should decline the Nobel Peace Prize. The Barack Obama who wrote "Dreams from My Father" is a complex and fascinating man.  He is not a token, a fetish, a talisman, or a symbol.  He is not a Morgan Freeman movie character.

And that's all I'll say on the matter.

Update: Well, it isn't all I'll say on the matter.  Awarding the prize to Obama, at this early stage in his political career (he was only a junior Senator this time last year) is the Academy's way of rebuking, yet again, George W. Bush.  The committee had already done that, by awarding the prize to Al Gore.  Bush deserves many rebukes, but the committee has sullied and trivialized itself and its prize with this one.  Obama has not furthered the cause of world peace in any measurable way, because he hasn't had time to do so.  It remains to be seen whether his policies will in fact further world peace.  If the committee gave the prize to Obama as a symbol, on the other hand, as a way of commemorating the achievements of African Americans in rising from segregation to the White House in 40 years, the "magic negro" comment stands.  Awarding the prize to Obama smacks of post-colonial paternalism, and faintly of racism.

"Here's a pat on the head, magic negro.  You've come so far!"

The prize should have been awarded to Richard Holbrooke for the Dayton Accords, his work in Bosnia, and in the Middle East today, or to Harry Wu or another Chinese activist for civil rights.  The only significant war that Obama has resolved is the Henry Louis Gates conflict, and there he had an assist from the makers of Bud Light.  Was Anheuser-Busch at least nominated?

Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White

35 Comments
Tags

35 Comments

  1. Grandy  •  Oct 9, 2009 @5:33 am

    Clearly they're just doing this to appease Kayne West.

  2. tim  •  Oct 9, 2009 @5:57 am

    Help me here – when did the Nobel Peace Price become relevant?

  3. Danimal  •  Oct 9, 2009 @6:13 am

    the committee that awarded the peace prize to Yassir Arafat had credibility at one point? When?

  4. Chris  •  Oct 9, 2009 @6:33 am

    I'm pretty firmly in the Obama camp, I think he's been doing good work, and even I don't think this makes sense. I'm not sure what the geopolitical implications of declining the prize might be, and I certainly wouldn't want to have to try and work them out at 6AM.

  5. Patrick  •  Oct 9, 2009 @6:43 am

    I’m not sure what the geopolitical implications of declining the prize might be

    War with Norway?

  6. Andrew  •  Oct 9, 2009 @7:00 am

    Danimal: At least Yasser Arafat was being recognized for a concrete achievement (the Oslo Accords), even if it didn't last. President Obama (whom I support on most issues) is being recognized for… not being George Bush?

    I hope he turns it down.

  7. Ken  •  Oct 9, 2009 @7:10 am

    I have to agree with Patrick here. This is gratuitously, in-your-face partisan and insultingly condescending.

  8. Alison  •  Oct 9, 2009 @8:11 am

    You need to understand the European psyche, look at it in the context of affirmation. After eight years of Bush, Europe as the rest of the world lost faith in the US. The US in recent years has and perhaps continues to be, an extremely imperalistic nation. I have yet to meet a single US citizen who fully appreciates how the rest of the world sees this.

    Side example: why did the US bomb the moon (even in the name of science), and since when did the US think it owned the moon to carry out such an act without permission?

    Norway's gesture is largely carrot, with a smattering of thank you. It may be condescending, but there's some Americans who do not like Obama's tactics. Its perhaps supposed to be a message, keep up a tide of change.

    Obama hasn't been in office long enough for this to be earned, and I will agree on that. Historians will quite possibly look upon Obama's stepping into office as a tipping point.

    If its a move towards encouraging world peace, then I am not going to be complaining.

  9. Patrick  •  Oct 9, 2009 @8:23 am

    In that case, Alison, why not give the award to Mahinda Rajapaska? Surely what he accomplished this year has done as much to encourage world peace as anything Obama's done.

  10. Dan  •  Oct 9, 2009 @8:32 am

    In somewhat related news, I found out that I won the Nobel Prize in Literature! A few weeks ago, I drunkenly scrawled some notes on a bar napkin about plans for writing a novel. Really it was more of an outline, but it has promise. I can't quite read all the bullet points… something about zombies and time travel. My submission truly impressed the committee. But anywho, what should I do with my $1.4 million???

  11. Alison  •  Oct 9, 2009 @8:33 am

    Think we could all come up with alternatives, and wasn't there over 200 nominations? But who else is in your face as much as the US, on the international stage? "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" comes to mind.

    Whatever action the US takes, always impacts the rest of the world. Heck, I know more about the US than countries that are immediate neighbours. Its easy to be idealistic, but the current state of the world is quite another matter. Its the latter we need to take, if lasting affirmation is to happen.

  12. Patrick  •  Oct 9, 2009 @8:51 am

    Alison the prize wasn't intended to be a new age award for good feelings or lasting affirmation, nor a popularity contest. So Europe loves the man. What has he done?

    Tell me why Obama deserves the award more than Vaclav Havel?

  13. Ezra  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:01 am

    If Europe still wanted to say F-U to Shrub, they could have given the award to Clinton, whose Clinton Global Initiative has done more than Obama for world peace. I'm not even sure it's a "magic negro" thing Patrick, I think it might be even more venal and silly than that. I think this is the Nobels hitching their wagon to the flavor of the month, and trying to build publicity.

    Man, it is a hard time to be a democrat…

  14. Chris  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:04 am

    He's already won an Emmy, so what's next? An academy award or AL MVP?

  15. Reed  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:05 am

    Either this award is undeserved because Obama's efforts, while they may be a good start, have not had sufficient time or results to demonstrate lasting effects, or the criteria for awarding the prize are so meaningless as to be irrelevant. Whichever it is, this award is a bad move by the Nobel committee.

    However, while I think he should give it back, I don't think, as a political matter, that he can. That would be too much of a slap in the face to the Europeans.

  16. Reed  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:06 am

    Sorry about the italics. Poor tagging.

  17. Grandy  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:10 am

    Obama is going to win Survivor.

  18. Patrick  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:11 am

    I’m not even sure it’s a “magic negro” thing Patrick

    Though Elie Wiesel didn't use the term, he said in an interview on NPR this morning that he believes Obama was given the award as a symbolic gesture because of his office and race.

    As a laureate of the prize himself, I suspect Wiesel has some insight into the committee's thinking. Of course the award was also given to rebuke Bush. It was given to influence Obama on Afghanistan and Iran. It was given for the feel-good reasons Alison suggests.

    It was given for a host of reasons, all of them bad.

  19. delurking  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:19 am

    Alison wrote:
    "Side example: why did the US bomb the moon (even in the name of science), and since when did the US think it owned the moon to carry out such an act without permission?"

    That is pretty funny coming from someone trying to describe this from a European point of view. Europe spent a few centuries landing on new Continents and claiming them as their territory just because they landed there first, despite the presence of inhabitants. By European standards, the US owns the moon because it landed there first (do I need to point out that the US did not have to displace any inhabitants on the moon?). Whose permission would you have the US ask?

    I wonder if there are people who are upset about all the asteroids and the comet into which NASA has crashed things while doing similar experiments.

  20. Alison  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:28 am

    Because Vaclav Havel won't have invoked a reaction like this, nor the same amount of coverage.

    I understand the NPP objective is, ""to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." What did Havel, do in 2008-09 (to take the award's preceding year criteria)? I know he was a member of the European Council (Tolerance and Reconciliation), but that's pan Europe only.

    Exactly who might have had the same global reach as Obama in the past year; especially against the backdrop of hostility?

    The committee awarded this on, ""his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." After Bush, I can see how the committee might be saying this. There's a bit of there's a bit of tongue in cheek going on there, between the lines.

    Sure, I could be to my back teeth cynical here too. The US is still a country that is at war, and faces some difficult international challenges ahead (which I don't need to spell out). And Obama has been in office, since er, January thus its about as uncomfortable as being given a diamond necklace on a second date. The expectations are great.

    If it holds carrot for the will's objective of "holding and promotion of peace congresses," and moves politicans along to do the same … then lets shoot.

  21. Ken  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:33 am

    If it's based on the preceding year, then it's based on 2008 — a year Obama spent almost exclusively campaigning for the Presidency. Which suggests that the Prize can be awarded by the impressiveness of your stump-speech rhetoric.

  22. Patrick  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:35 am

    to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind

    The preceding year is 2008. What did Obama do in 2008 to bring about world peace? Furthermore, the Committee doesn't use those critera. Jimmy Carter didn't win the prize for his efforts in 2001, nor did the Dalai Lama for his efforts in 1988, nor Elie Wiesel for his work in 1985.

    You believe that Obama should get a medal for his popularity. Fine. But past recipients have generally gotten the award for actual achievements.

  23. Jdog  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:41 am

    I think Alison's got a point; maybe if the Nobel Committee would have known that Obama's administration was going to engage in that unilateral, unprovoked bombing of the Selenites, based on the lie that they might have been storing dihydrogen oxide, they would have chosen more wisely.

  24. Jdog  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:42 am

    I'm shocked that it didn't go to Miley Cyrus. She's more popular than Obama, and has the same global political accomplishments in the promotion of peace.

  25. TomH  •  Oct 9, 2009 @9:57 am

    So, on the one hand the US is reviled for its imperialist acts.

    On the other hand, Obama is celebrated for using US power and influence to control the course of "international diplomacy."

    What the heck is imperialism today? It used to be so easy, it was controlling the fate of other sovereign nations, and among other things, controlling their "international diplomacy" and internal politics. Is that not what Obama means to do? He certainly is not letting those other nations do as they please. Every time he turns around, he is cajoling and demanding action from other sovereign nations. If he gets what he wants out of them, is that not the current definition of imperialism? Iran do this, North Korea do that.

  26. Alison  •  Oct 9, 2009 @10:09 am

    2008, is this really a calendar year rather than one that begins at Michaelmas? If the former, I would query too.

    For the other point. Noone is becomes automatically popular, especially on a global scale. You've need certain traits (such as patience and humility), and to be whatever the global equivilent of 'street savvy' is. You at the very least show some awareness of other cultures. If you are coming from a country with a history of being extremely dominant, aggressive, adversarial even; then the level you need to achieve to smash this goes right up. Popularity or being liked, paves the way for negotiation and with it reconciliation.

    Even the US – where there's a bit of kiss my butt going on – popularity is not automatically granted. Look no further than Bush for that; and if Palin was in office, international relations would possibly be below the gutter.

    I think Obama deserves recognition for his charisma, the patience, reaching out, and changing the tone. That is a skill in itself, and it looks easier said than done; especially in a world that has been carved out from so much mistrust in the last decade. In a dog eat dog world, where I must be better than you – they are traits that are highly undervalued. One hopes these are excellent foundations for the future.

    And yes, there's plenty of other people out there doing excellent work. Long may they continue, and they too get the recognition they deserve.

    Its Friday night over here, so I'm off out. Its been nice debating with you all. :)

  27. Chris  •  Oct 9, 2009 @10:12 am

    The moon's shifty. Always up there, staring. It thinks it's so big – and it is, by moon standards. But we're a goddamn planet, and sometimes you just need to smack the moon and remind it who orbits who.

  28. Jess  •  Oct 9, 2009 @11:14 am

    I appreciate Alison's comments because they seem to be an accurate reflection of what on earth the prize committee might have been thinking. That isn't to say they make a bit of sense. First, did she actually read the quotes at the BBC link? There was not unalloyed congratulations from the world's great and good. The "better than Bush" idea is a non sequitur. Can anyone cite a single Bush international policy that Obama has reversed? His accomplishments are pure marketing. Alison must agree, since she again and again comments on his popularity and charisma, and argues that lack of same is what held back lesser contenders who only lived in warzones and refugee camps and prisons for decades.

    The prize committee was jealous of the IOC, so they used the only lure they had to get Obama to Oslo. It would have been slightly more ridiculous to give him the Prize in Economics. The Nobel Prize has jumped the shark.

  29. mojo  •  Oct 9, 2009 @11:32 am

    "If Palin was in office"?

    What, as VP?

  30. J Random  •  Oct 9, 2009 @12:39 pm

    I’m not sure what the geopolitical implications of declining the prize might be

    War with Norway?

    That's not something to undertake lightly; after all, they invented dynamite.

  31. Old Geezer  •  Oct 9, 2009 @3:29 pm

    Did I miss something? When did any of the several Nobel prizes become a public referendum? A bunch of old guys in Norway sift through a bunch of names and decide who they want to give a plaque and some money to. Don't like it? Invent your own explosives and give out your own prizes. Can't wait to hear from all of you on the morning after the Oscars. "I'm gonna let you finish, but…."

  32. Patrick  •  Oct 9, 2009 @3:35 pm

    If you believe the prize is of no significance OG, as you evidently do, why did you bother to comment?

  33. Old Geezer  •  Oct 9, 2009 @6:50 pm

    Gosh. Where did I say it was of no significance? What I said was that it is up to those people who award the prize to decide what the criteria is for awarding it. It is not up to the raving masses to either second-guess them or decide how mis-guided their choice is. Remember how everyone thought Kanye West was such a jerk for jumping up and saying how wrong it was to award the prize to the "wrong" person? Now, suddenly, it's very important to second-guess an award. This speaks not to the significance of the award, but to the shallowness of the screamers.

  34. Jess  •  Oct 9, 2009 @8:15 pm

    Geezer, none of us ever waived our rights to criticism of Scandinavian folly. Your Kanye analogy is sadly beside the point, as none of us are actually stage-barging in Oslo. If you "missed" anything, it's the last 108 years of public discussion and commentary on the Nobel Prizes. Obama couldn't hold up a conversation with the likes of Sakharov, Pauling, or Wiesel. He would inspire only pity in Mandela or Mother Teresa. It's no surprise that some people would be concerned about the diminution of the Nobel brand. Apparently now it's just another awards show; like its entertainment-industry brethren it will soon be ignored by thinking people.

  35. Patrick  •  Oct 10, 2009 @3:33 am

    This speaks not to the significance of the award, but to the shallowness of the screamers.

    But if the award is significant, OG, and I believe it is, is it not appropriate for the public to comment about it? The award is taken seriously by its recipients, and they include many great people, including the three Jess named. Joining that company elevates the recipient, and the award is socially significant across the world.

    Since now you seem to be of the opinion that the award is of significance, is it your position that we, the public, should not comment upon it? Or that we should only praise the choice, whether we agree with it or not? Must we defer to the five Norwegian dwarves, who I'll remind you are not the same five dwarves who chose Sakharov or Elie Wiesel?

    Is all dissent shallow in your view?