While many eyebrows have been raised by the Nobel Committee giving the Nobel Prize to Obama (including
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020347.php">some reasonable doubts), I'm am increasingly annoyed by criticisms that invent new intentions and uses for the prize. Indeed, the Wikipedia article for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize|Nobel Prize> has already been amended with the following phrase:
U.S. President Barack Obama was nominated the day after inauguration and then elected for the award just 8 months into his administration.
This raises some flags. What does being president have to do with winning the prize? Few heads of state do win. Many recipients head organizations or are activists in contentious arenas. However, some awards recognize the intellectual accomplishments of the individual more than their activism. Indeed, Elie Wiesel should be considered less deserving than Obama, considering that his primary contributions to the understanding of genocide and totalitarianism came through novels. (BTW, why does the spell check recognize Wiesel, not Obama?) Moreover, it's fair to compare Obama's prize to Wiesel's, being that they largely recognize how the individual has affected discourse.
The second thing that annoys me is that phrases like these cast the Nobel Prize, and by extension all prizes, as lifetime achievement awards. It is not. It often supports, politically and financially, ongoing efforts. Obama's life did not begin with his election and inauguration. His work, intellectual and political, has been ongoing. He did not wait to become president to begin his work. Indeed, it's possible that had someone else had succeeded Bush, Obama might still be a contender.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
