too or two.

Hmmm...well being that the US is still suffering from the after effects of slavery and having to endure Civil Rights movement that only recently saw minorities making strides in posts ONLY held by majority White men, it's really not all that different.

Mandela simply was elected first as the first Black head of state of a White run country so I do not buy your argument that he won the award because of his color.

Just for fun - what did Alfred Nobel say the prize should recognize?
 

Alfred Nobel's will said it should recognize champions of peace, SPECFICALLY (and I quote) it should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." (bolding obviously mine)

SO - does he fit the criteria the founder of the award established? I don't think so - reading about the other nominees I think they did more or better. If we focus on this criteria it might be easier to discuss Obama's merit in terms less politically fraught. Or not. :rolleyes:

Ok I meant two, not too. And use this country is still recovering from slavery, but South Africa blacks were legally bared from holding office IIRC. Plus I never said that Obama won just because he was the first nonwhite president. I said it was likely a large factor. Oh slight tangent because this bugs me to no end, OBAMA IS NOT BLACK!! He is biracial, half black and half white, which no body seems to mention.

Oh...I'm sorry. African American...my bad.

*snicker*

L.O.L. :rolleyes: Really?
You should tell PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA that he's not black. Clearly, he's misinformed.

Oh good lord.

For what it's worth, I still don't get it and I probably never will. Of course, I don't "get" most of the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.

I could use the money though.

It is their award. Why wouldn't they have the final say in who deserves it.

Everything that I have written is my opinion, no more no less. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

Exactly. I don't understand why there is an investment in demonstrating that this particular awardee is somehow so much less deserving than any other random awardee that you might reference.

Again, you're reading WAY too much into this. No one is saying that President Obama is "so much less deserving" than other awardees. It's nice to have a winner from the U.S., and it's great that the sitting President is a Nobel Prize winner. People are just saying that they don't understand this particular selection based on how early he is into his term.

As you said, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it; people are just expressing their opinion.

^^I am not just talking about what is happening on this site, and people on this board are using phrasing that is much harsher than what you wrote.

Ksig...go back and read some of the responses here and even in the media.

There are those that believe abundantly that he is much less deserving than others who were nominated.

I mean that's why people are confused by the win in the first place!

I just saw a snippet of the press conference.

Obama himself said he didn't deserve it. Although, that could just be him being humble.

But... I still don't get it.

Also, I do not prescribe to the idea that we should stop speaking on it because we weren't part of the Nobel committee. Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. Imagine the world if we didn't.

LOL! Only in post-Obama America can people suddenly pretend that a biracial Black man isn't Black. Even to the point of being so adament and angered about it.

Race is a social construction that is based on identifiability. We are not born with a "race," but are born with a genetic makeup and particular features. Obama can call himself whatever he wants to, and those of you who insist on biracialism can go with that. BUT many of us look at Obama and see just another Black man. A light skinned Black man with a round nose, and an Afro (now a salt n pepper fade). He has the features of the NONbiracial light skinned Black people that many of us have seen everyday of our lives...that many of us see when we look in the mirror...that many of us see in our families.

I say this public emphasis on biracialism is intentional and about change and inclusion. "I'm not that different from EVERYONE...EVERYONE can relate to me." Who knows how Obama really identifies and whether his private speech is different than the public emphasis that he places on being half white.

That's a different story then - although I try not to pay attention to the garbage people write on most newspaper and media message boards. The moderation on those sites is nonexistent, so some awful stuff filters through.

Actually, depending on the context, Obama is vocal about being biracial rather than Black. He would identify with being Black before being white (as most half Black-half white people would), but he's vocal about being biracial.

Premature win . . . then again they did give it to Henry Kissinger, we know his record.