So this morning I saw an editorial cartoon is by one of my friends and colleagues that stated that Malala was robbed.
I don’t get it.
The purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize, at least ostensibly before they gave it to Pres. Obama, is to award people who work toward and promote the cause of peace.
She doesn’t do that. She promotes education. She promotes gender equality. She certainly deserves to be considered for prizes related to those topics. But peace? If anything, her work is been divisive in her own country, Pakistan.
Seems to me that the Nobel Peace Prize has become an award that you simply goes to people we like. Not people who necessarily promote peace.
Even the peacemakers who get it – Nelson Mandela, Henry Kissinger, etc. – have to participate in causes that kill people, then stop killing people, before they get considered for the peace prize.
Meanwhile, your garden-variety schlub never kills anyone doesn’t get considered for anything. Something is clearly wrong when a bloodsoaked maniac like Kissinger or Obama can get a peace prize and someone who leads their life in an ordinary fashion, killing nobody, gets no attention or praise whatsoever.
This isn’t to say that Malala isn’t praiseworthy. Although I do think that she is increasingly serving as a puppet of secular Western interests. But a Nobel Peace Prize? Doesn’t make sense.
1 Comment.
It actually does make sense if you accept that the Nobel Peace Prize, like any award co-opted by authoritarians, is given for incoherent reasons. She’s famous, she’s done socially responsible things, therefore she gets a Nobel Peace Prize is perfectly logical once you accept that warmongers and peace-haters get them, too. The bottom has so thoroughly fallen out of the rubric involved that merely making the Prize not-hostile to its original intent would be a step-up.