What is Digg?127 Comments
- IrishJoe, on 10/24/2007, -9/+128One word: Racism. During his life, Gandhi wasn't white enough for the Nobel committee. "Up to 1960, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded almost exclusively to Europeans and Americans. In retrospect, the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee may seem too narrow." He had dark skin, lived in India and was a Hindu. The Nobel committee of the 1940s couldn't see past that.
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -2/+57It was politically expedient. Norway has never wanted to piss off Britain by awarding the prize to the godfather of Indian independence.
- reeder, on 10/16/2007, -5/+39It's never too late, Nobel Prize committee.
- neogarfield, on 10/17/2007, -2/+32Excellently put CrazyDiode!
But you might want to know that Gandhi was never truly for the partition of India. He wanted Jinnah as the President of a united India, but was overruled by the other members of the Congress.
And I believe that Gandhi does not require a Nobel. His contributions are world renown, and why should there be something as silly as a Nobel prize to seemingly "ascertain" his goodness? Gandhiji is much much more than that.
They say he worked only for India. But what about his valuable messages? What about the immeasurable advice about non-violence which is practiced throughout the world today, and saving many lifes, and destruction? The reports have missing spaces, which have to be filled in by ideas already said by IrishJoe and Jonolan - racism, fear of Britain, and so on... - slashbot, on 10/18/2007, -19/+47Makes you wonder when Ghandi doesnt get it but Arafat and Al Gore do.
Nice political prize this has become - Chestnutridge, on 10/16/2007, -2/+27Yes it is. The rules, as devised by Alfred Nobel, specify that the winner must be living.
- crazydiode, on 10/17/2007, -1/+25award to Nelson Mandela, Ann Sun Syu Kui, the Dalai Lama is in fact award to the Mahatma. That is indeed the Mahatma's legacy. I believe that is what he would have been proud of...
- RxDaniel, on 10/17/2007, -4/+26His mistake is that he actually went out and did stuff to help people when in reality he should have made a movie about other people trying to help people.
- reddevil3, on 10/18/2007, -25/+47Gandhi himself was a racist towards black people when he was in South Africa.
- jmpeagle, on 10/16/2007, -0/+20no, they just didn't want to piss of the Brits who he was leading a non-violent rebellion against
- markperia, on 10/17/2007, -0/+15He doesn't need a prize to validate his contributions to the world. The lessons he gave us in life still lives on after his death. No "peace" prize can truly substantiate that.
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -5/+18 Well said, Joe.
- Andy.D, on 10/18/2007, -1/+13Great find. I've wondered about this myself, but the explanation makes perfect sense.
- 955701, on 10/18/2007, -4/+16Because it would have made the award celebration dinner party awkward.
*ducks*
"soup sir?", "no thank you"
"appetizer, sir?", "no thank you"
"salad?", "no thank you"
"beef?", "no thank you"
"bread stick?", "no thank you"
"would you like me to eat your food, then breath in your general direction?", "no thank you" - detokaal, on 10/16/2007, -8/+18He wasn't the front man for a left-leaning political view point - all he did was promote peace.
- dravidian, on 10/17/2007, -3/+13So? He grew out of it. When he was in SA he was a young brainwashed brown guy brought up by the colonial system to dislike himself and other colored people, and love everything British.
- dopplerdog, on 10/16/2007, -1/+10If they can give it to war criminals like Kissinger, then it's probably best they didn't give it to Gandhi.
- HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9When he was a lawyer who wore fine European suits. i.e., before he did his whole nonviolent resistance thing.
- insanepandas, on 10/16/2007, -2/+11Yep. He was nominated several times and would have most likely have won it eventually. But... he was assassinated and the Nobel Prize isn't awarded posthumously. It's not a conspiracy, get over it.
- d00by666, on 10/17/2007, -3/+11I think we should be glad he did not win the Nobel peace prize!
Why do I say that? Because when people like Arafat, Kissinger and lesser people like gore are awarded the prize, it makes one wonder about the credibility of the prize.
I think the Nobel peace prize needed Gandhi more than the other way round.
Gandhi had his faults. But, he is far too great a soul to need something as trivial as some prize.
His legacy needs no crutches like these silly awards.
Peace all. - SuperMoses, on 10/16/2007, -1/+8"but Arafat and Al Gore"
Ya, way to group Al Gore with Arafat. At least Al Gore has the scientific consensus to back him up. Arafat won it because they were hoping that him and Rabin were going to come to a peace agreement. Unfortunately Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli shortly after the Oslo Accords. - akkibaba, on 10/16/2007, -0/+7Because the "No Posthumous Awards" clause was put in only in 1974. Did you not read my post?
- 2square, on 10/16/2007, -0/+7***** hitler as well
- slashbot, on 10/16/2007, -8/+14You're right. Arafat probably deserved it more.
- pintomp3, on 10/18/2007, -1/+7considering britians brutal rule, it was britains fault. churchill was a flagrant racist.
- Chestnutridge, on 10/16/2007, -4/+10There was always a political aspect to the choices. Gandhi was quite controversial. Churchill called him a "half naked fakir" and never accepted the idea that the Indians were up to ruling themselves. When Teddy Roosevelt got it for mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese war many people objected because of his bellicose personality. Also, remember Arafat didn't get it alone but with Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister for the Oslo peace deal. Just as Kissinger and the North Vietnamese Foreign Minister won it for ending the Vietnam War. Neither peace deal worked out, but I guess they were given the award for trying despite very questionable records for all concerned.
- jeanette3654, on 10/16/2007, -3/+8Because he was for real? It seems you have to be a lying,bloodsoaked,NWO operative to win(see recent "winners") Arafat, Kissinger etc. Now they seem to give it to anything that stands still long enough.
- bluebirdgm, on 10/16/2007, -2/+7Actually, I hear it's because he punched out a guy in senior year of high school for calling his mom fat.
- iansides, on 10/17/2007, -5/+10Al Gore won the Nobel peace prize, and Gandhi didn't. That should tell you right there what that award is worth. ABSO-*****-LUTELY NOTHING.
- SuperMoses, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4The premise of the documentary was that current global warming is largely due to human activity. This perfectly agrees with the scientific consensus. This is also what people claim Al Gore "made up"... despite the fact that he didn't "make it up". The science was there first, Al Gore just used the science. Did he present some things inaccurately? I don't know, I'm not a scientist..what I do know is that his conclusion is no different than the conclusion of the scientific consensus.
- CheapDigWannbe, on 10/17/2007, -6/+10Don't get so pissy, looking at recent events it seems that Novel Prize is no longer worth a rat ass.
- InkyHLV, on 10/16/2007, -1/+5History is full of people who don't get the recognition they deserve. Nobel Peace Prize or not he is still an amazing man who proved that an organized, peaceful resistance was an effective alternative to a bloody revolution. Ghandi has a great man and just because Al Gore got a Nobel Prize and Ghandi didn't doesn't change the fact that I admire Ghandi more and hold his work in much regard then that of Al Gore's.
- deadnewton, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4no...for literature..
- eyalfein, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Mahatma Gandhi does not need the Nobel prize.
The fact that he didn't receive it puts stain on the Nobel Committee, but does not matter for the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi. - Splutterbug, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Great article, this is what Digg should be about, not top 10 lists
- Bartboy919, on 10/16/2007, -6/+9CAUSE HE DIED! http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/ ...
- nightwing2000, on 10/18/2007, -5/+8Don't forget Winston Churchill's assessment of Gandhi as a weasly little hypocrite.
Winston said something like "He claims to be for peace and non-violence; but he knows very well, every time he goes on a hunger strike or gets himself arrested, there is riot and mayhem in the street. He's not for non-violence. He just knows how to make the violence look like Britain's fault. He knows exactly what he is doing and the consequences." - sethosayher, on 10/16/2007, -2/+5Didn't Tagore win a Nobel Peace Prize in the early 1900s?
- SuperMoses, on 10/16/2007, -1/+4More like people hate Gore because he and the scientific community disagrees with their views. Seriously, since when was agreeing with the scientific consensus a bad thing? That's Al Gore is doing.. agreeing with the consensus and promoting it.
- bluechips23, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Well said Joe. In other words, the Nobel Committee guys during those period were simply douchebags.
- polybot, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2The British would have ceded India in a fairly short time regardless in a relatively gradual and peaceful process.
Ghandhi wanted to fast track this process unnecessarily causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the suffering of millions and a current nuclear stand-off by two hostile states. - SuperMoses, on 10/18/2007, -2/+4Actually, someone who despises Mother Teresa is Christopher Hitchens, and being a supporter of the Iraq war.. I wouldn't call Hitchens a "liberal".. whatever that word even means nowadays.
I bet it makes you feel good inside putting people into categories so you can judge them. - bsdfree, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2Why can't it be awarded posthumously? Just because it hasn't before, it doesn't mean it shouldn't ever. If there were to be an exception, I can't think of anyone more suitable than Mahatma Gandhi. Awarding it now won't bring me to respect the Nobel Peace Prize, but it will certainly will bring a little more respect.
In any case, though, it doesn't really matter - no prize can augment or lessen Gandhi's great contributions to the world. - sanman, on 10/16/2007, -2/+4Gandhi was just a useful mascot for every group who felt angry at a supreme victorious Britain emerging from WW2. Germans, French, Italians, Irish, communists, leftists of all shapes and sizes -- who didn't have it in for the gloating victor of WW2?
- alexkorova, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Norwegian Nobel Prize committee is not the same as the regular Swedish Nobel Prize committee.
- Sabretou, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3If I know Gandhi correctly, he would have chastised the Committee for making stupid awards for people. "Go do something productive!" he would have yelled.
- inactive, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1The Nobel Peace Prize committee consists of a whooping 5 members. What they have to say is insignificant. Who cares really?
- graviplana, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2I really enjoyed this post. Dugg.
- Xondar, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1How about the fact that it wasn't awarded to Gandhi because he was a racist and Indian nationalist first.
He thought blacks were sub-human, not worthy of the same rights as Europeans and Indians. I was disappointed the article didn't touch on that at all. While he was undoubtedly a great man, this is a dark mark on his life and work.
Why are most Digg users ignorant of this fact? Why does the article ignore it, and pretty much brush over it? (The article only hints at this and never goes into further detail: "One might say that it is significant that his well-known struggle in South Africa was on behalf of the Indians only, and not of the blacks whose living conditions were even worse.") I'm sure that the attitude toward Gandhi would be far, far different if he considered white people to be inferior and sub-human. Would so much praise now be heaped upon him?
Gandhi was not as altruistic as we've been led to believe, and I think that his attitude toward black people should not be overlooked and glossed over. I suppose that every man has his demons, the things he shouldn't be praised for. In an effort to find heroes in our modern world, we are willing to overlook a few skeletons in the closet so we can have someone to look up to. - mjoshi, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Well it would be dishonour to his teachings and his values by awarding him Nobel Peace Prize keeping into mind league of people that got this prize. It also shows that some of this prizes are irrelevant when it comes to real life values and people who live and die by those values instead of some current generation practical politicians.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is