Max writes in this post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/11/the-nobel-committee-did-malala-a-favor-in-passing-her-over-for-the-peace-prize/
It would have reaffirmed that too-common Western habit that, by giving a powerful symbol a greater platform and lots of accolades, we’ll have fulfilled our duty.The point of the Nobel Peace Prize is not to make Western TV viewers feel inspired and comforted, it is to promote peace.Still, as University of North Carolina assistant professor Zeynep Tufekci wrote in a careful and thoughtful piece on the Nobel decision, Malala “is but one courageous person.” Tufekci continues:Fortunately for the world, there is no shortage of such brave, courageous individuals. In fact, there is an abundance of them, especially in poor, authoritarian countries. If you think Malala is rare, that is probably because you have not spent much time in such countries. Most Malalas, however, go nameless, and are not made into Western celebrities.Tufecki also explains why she was uncomfortable with Jon Stewart’s declaration that he wanted to adopt Malala: It was “a striking sentiment in which our multi-decade involvement in Pakistan is reduced to finding a young woman we admire that we all want to take home as if to put on a shelf to adore.” We’ve already adopted her, in a metaphorical sense, and in so doing have asked her to implicitly absolve us of any further responsibility.
____________
great insight and fitting to jack et al ness..
