Maureen Dowd, Why Gandhi Never Won the Nobel Peace Prize

Many people comment on the fact that President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, yet Gandhi never did.

Gandhi was nominated five times for a Nobel Peace prize, but politics prevented its award the first four times he was considered, and his assassination prevented it the last.

So, Maureen Dowd, who on Sunday, October 10, 2009, said that because Gandhi had not won a Nobel Peace Prize, it "ain't worth a can of Alpo."

It's easy when you have a nice, cushy gig at the New York Times to forget that those of us who don't, have to make sure our facts are golden. Having graduate degrees means I know how to research, how to fact check, and how to site my sources. I write commentary, but I write commentary based on fact, and if I say someone said something, I give you the link, or provide the source. Maybe Maureen needs to go back to school and relearn basic research.

Actually, with the inter-tubes, it's not that hard. There's these things called search engines and most organizations have websites. Using Google, I found the website of the Nobel Prize Committee and read all about their decision about Gandhi. You can also read about the other prizes, all the prize winners and reasons why the committees have made the decisions that they have made. It's fascinating reading.

Maureen, you should check it out.

According to The Nobel Prize Committee, the only reason that Gandhi did not receive a Nobel Peace Prize is that he was assassinated 2 days before the nomination deadline for 1948. He had received 6 letters of nomination. The committee does not award prizes to the deceased. They actually considered it in Gandhi's case, but because he left no estate to which they could award the cash prize, had left no will, and belonged to no organizations who could have benefited from the funds, the decision was made to award no prize that year. Does this mean that the prize would have gone to Gandhi had he lived? Most likely. They won't say - obviously (if they did, that in effect would be making an award) - but they did say that there was no one living suitable to make the award.

A lawyer living in South  Africa, Gandhi returned to India in 1915 and spent the next years an active nationalist working to end British rule and attempting to unite the Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to integrate the untouchables into society. Attempts that were unsuccessful.

Between 1937 and 1947, India experienced 3 conflicts. The first, against British rule in which they succeeded. The second, was between Hindu and Muslim - a conflict that exists to this date, and the third, India's participation in WWII.


In 1947 came the Great Partition. British rule was ended, WWII was over, but attempts to unite the Hindus and Muslims was futile. With partition came the creation of Pakistan and India as two separate states. Along with violence and bloodshed, everyone had to move. Muslims to the west and Pakistan, Hindus to the east. Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence, his teachings, and his followers was credited with reducing the amount of bloodshed during the partition conflicts.


It appeared that war was inevitable between Hindus Muslims in Pakistan and some say he was wavering in his non-violent stance. In fact, his statements on justice for Pakistani Hindus were repeated without his concluding statement that "he had no place in a new order where they wanted an army, a navy, an air force and what not."

On January 30, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

No, Maureen Dowd, It's Not Alpo

I expected the extreme right to attack President Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The National Republican Committee in the form of Michael Steele - not known for thinking before speaking - didn't surprise me when he said
:

"...the real question Americans are asking is, “What has President Obama actually accomplished?” It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action."

On Sunday, Bob Schieffer of Meet the Press said the award would change the way we look at the prize. In her column, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times said that because Gandhi never won the prize and because Kissinger did, "it ain't worth a can of Alpo" writing her column as a conversation between W and Clinton - suggesting that they are now BFF's because Obama's winning the prize had erased every reason for strain between the two of them.

Thomas Friedman, also of the times, demands that the prize should instead be given to the American military as they are the ones who have actually brought peace. WTF? Isn't the military made up of soldiers who are sent by their commanders to invade a country that did not attack us? Isn't that called waging war? How does he get waging peace out of that?


Bill Kristol, late of the Times, states that President Obama's receipt of the Peace Prize is anti-American. Excuse me? I find myself insulted by that. I'm an American. I'm not always pleased with the decisions made by the President, but he was elected by a majority of Americans. He has already accomplished a lot. The American people elected an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress - a clear message that we reject the ideology of the Republican Party and of the previous administration.


The day of the award, the Taliban stated that President Obama did not deserve the award. On his show, Rush Limbaugh said that, amazingly enough, he agreed with the Taliban. And laughed.


And I could go on, and on, and on.


Regardless of what a few people with a very loud platform say, the majority of Americans approve of President Obama, approve of how he is doing his job, approve of his winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and are proud that the prize was awarded to an American. Most people understand that whenever something good happens to an American, we can all be proud.

He won the prize because he campaigned on a platform of ending the two wars the George Bush got us into. He campaigned on a platform of closing Guantanamo and ending torture. He campaigned on a platform of restoring America's place in the world community. He convinced the American people to elect him to change the direction of this country. Archbishop Desmond Tutu was awarded the Peace Prize for his work towards ending apartheid despite the fact that apartheid did not end for another 10 years. Martin Luther King, Jr., was awarded the prize although the issue of race is far from over in this country, Jimmy Carter won the prize for his work towards Middle East peace, although it is obvious peace is still a distant dream. Al Gore won for his work on global warming, yet the earth gets warmer every year.

Clearly, the committee rewards vision and possibility. Clearly, the committee respects work that begins healing. Clearly the committee sees the healing that has begun as President Obama travels the world and repairs the damage done by George Bush and his administration.

So yes, President Obama most definitely, according to the precedents set by the Nobel Committee does deserve the Peace Prize. Because it is, however, based as much on possibilities as actions, we can all look forward to watching him realize the change that he promised us.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Why President Obama Deserves the Nobel Peace Prize

An unusual and extremely perceptive take on President Obama's Nobel Prize. Many people don't know Rachel Maddow, and many who do, don't realize that she has a PhD in political science and is not the usual cable talking head.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k