I am thinking of starting a campaign to establish an internationally-recognised system of ‘War Prizes’. It may seem more than a trifle insensitive but, really, it is the perfectly rational thing to do. After all war is a difficult and dangerous business and I think it is only fair that its most skilled practitioners are accorded some due level of public acclaim. We could even have categories of award such as ‘Most Devastating Air Strike’ or ‘Most Creative Use of Field Artillery’.
You may think I am being morbid but at least my ‘War Prizes’ would prove a darn sight more interesting than those wretched and depressing ‘Peace prizes’:
A Kenyan environmentalist and human rights campaigner has been awarded the Nobel peace prize, becoming the first African woman to win the prestigious award since it was created in 1901.
Mrs Maathai, 64, received international acclaim in 1998 when she stopped the then Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi from building a luxury housing project after he had cleared hundreds of acres of forest.
The green belt movement in Kenya, which she founded in 1977, has planted more than 10 million trees to prevent soil erosion.
Why, exactly, is this person getting a ‘peace’ prize? A horticultural prize? With pleasure. A landscape gardening prize? For sure. But how, precisely, does a lifetime of professional tree-hugging qualify her as a preventer of armed conflict? As far as I can tell, Mrs. Maathai is being rewarded for being a female, African version of George Monbiot.
And, excuse me, but surely the last thing that Africa needs is more sodding environment? They have got environment up the ying-yang. In fact, they have got bugger all except bloody environment and most of it is wild, dangerous, parasitical and extremely detrimental to human life. What Africa needs is machine tools and lathes and tarmac roads and heavy trucks and great, big smokestack factories turning the sky black with their belched-out fumes. Given her commitment to maintaining the untamed savagery of that continent, I would judge that the most suitable award for Mrs. Maathai is a Serious Pain in the Arse Prize. People who build tarmac roads and heavy trucks no longer qualify for prizes. They only qualify for taxes, regulations and internationally-recognised opprobrium.
Call me old-fashioned but I always thought that ‘peace’ means the absence of war. Now it appears to mean something entirely different. Just like the word ‘liberal’ (in the US context and, increasingly, in Britain too) has become a label to describe people whose ideas and attitudes are anything and everything but liberal, so too the word ‘peace’ has now become a synonym for anything which is suitably and loudly primitivist, anti-development, anti-prosperity, anti-progress, nihilist, communist or just plain nuts!
I suppose that is why the remaining children of Lenin and raggedy, ageing Che-worshippers can still march around the thoroughfares of Western cities masquerading as ‘peace campaigners’. ‘Peace’ is the fig-leaf behind which they can try to hide their godawfulness and pretend that they are struggling for a better world.
‘Peace’ is a discredited bromide. All I am saying is give my ‘War Prizes’ a chance.
Isn’t it strange that most civil violence invloves “peace” or “environmental” campaigners. Myabe they should take a leaf out of the professional poitician’s book and employ people to do it for them like Mr Bush and Mr Blair.(Link)
I thought they already had ‘war prizes’, they’re called medals.
I’d say they’re right to read “peace” as more than “prevention of war”. A better reading would be “prevention of strife and fostering conviviality” — but if they were giving prizes for that, multinational commerce would be the winner every year.
Alright it might not be in a nobel prize category but I too salute her efforts.
Just to the south of the Sahara fewer trees equals greater desert and that’s not going to be much use for wealth generating industry or agriculture. The housing project that was being developed by el presidente simply sounds like rampant corruption in action and we all know that channeling mucho dinero to the dictatorial Swiss bank accounts is seriously holding Africa back.
Other than that, spot on.
Once they’ve given the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat, I think they’ve lowered the bar just about all the way to the ground. On that basis, we could call it the “Not Causing the Violent Death of Anyone in the Last Few Weeks” Prize.
I like the War Prize idea, since it would cause the right kinds of people to spontaneously combust. Come to think of if, the British and American armies have created an awful lot more world peace than any Peace Prize winner that comes to mind.
Why, it was not a Peace prize – it was a Racism prize. And a feminism prize. Many of the peace prize winners are female, maybe most, in these modern times – that is because women were underrepresented in other categories – which means: sexual discrimination (also called chauvinist piggism). The remedy: apply affirmative action ….
Next – the racial balance: a brown woman (the lying Nicaraguan, what’s her name, Rigoberta something), then a slant-eyed one, and now a black one. I mean – thse prize-awarding guys are experts in distinguishing between races, i.e. expert racists.
And lastly – ideological balance – see the literature prize. (Disclosure: I’m not familiar with Elfriede Jelinek’s work).
Quote:
“The academy has also again shown a preference for literature with a political echo.” (Feminism echo too…).
You might say that the Nobel Peace Prize was made meaningless a lot earlier than with Arafat. The real lowering of the bar right at the start was when they gave it to Theodore Roosevelt. A major bummer, indeed.
Really, why is anyone still paying any attention to this annual farce.
I don’t mind nice ladies in Africa getting Nobel peace prizes, but I’m afraid that some catastrophic war might be just around the corner, like it was with the Kissinger prize and the Arafat prize.
See this about unrest in Kenya.
“Just to the south of the Sahara fewer trees equals greater desert and that’s not going to be much use for wealth generating industry or agriculture.”
I don’t know. We seem to be able to run wealth generating industries in our deserts. We even have agriculture in our deserts. Seems to me that technology and industry is a damn sight more useful than wilderness when it comes to allowing human beings to live decent lives.
She also believes, and repeatedly states that AIDS is a biological warfare agent invented by someone to kill black people.
How about “Wealth Prizes”? Whoever in the last year created more millionaires than anyone else could be rewarded with the absolute governance of some benighted country like Kenya. Make Steve Jobs dictator-for-life and you’d see some changes!
I was going to relate her wacky AIDS conspiracy theory as well, but John beat me to it.
Further David’s comments about the word “peace” now meaning something entirely different, here is Norwegian Nobel Committee head Ole Danbolt Mjoes, defending the body’s decision:
“Peace on earth depends on our ability to secure our living environment. We have emphasized the environment, democracy building and human rights and especially women’s rights. We have added a new dimension to the concept of peace.”
I’ve already got my own prize, inspired in part by Jimmy Carter’s Nobel win. The prize’s second blogiversary is this November 5.
I think the concept of a peace prize is all wrong. Peace can be rooted in appeasement of evil or individual freedom. So award what’s at the root of good peace (and good war) – liberty.
The Nobel prize committe’s have made weird, strange, and plain stupid decisions when it comes to the peace and literature prize this year. What can I say? If Swedes are stupid enough to keep a socialist government in power despite obvious reasons not to, then they sure are capable of doing this (I’m a Swede myself, and only recently was I granted the right to vote).