Loving v. Virginia was ruled on in 1967, when Barack was six. Add in that it was individual states, not the nation that had the miscegenation laws, and that theory goes down the drain. Just being black doesn't cut it.
Yes, he's pushing for changes and an end to nuclear weapons and Mideast peace and all these groovy things, but last time I checked, awards are usually given for accomplishments, not the promise of accomplishments.
It was simply another political decision. And a bad one.
Well, if you're Huerta Miller, you also get one for writing poetry about the homeless. Oh, sorry. "The dispossessed."
Only the actual Nobel committee can say for sure, and they've spoken their peace - to whit: “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation."
Political or not, their decision is their decision and casting aspersions on it does nothing but engage in armchair politicking and second guessing. It's done. Better to figure out what to do when the inevitable backlash comes down from the oft-alluded "other side."
And for the record, I'm well aware that Loving Vs. Virginia was ruled on in 1967, and I'm well aware that it was individual states, not the Federal Government, that carried the miscegenation laws - you've actually made my point for me. 1967 is the very definition of "Not that long ago." Multiple states said "Y'all cain't do that!" and were allowed to continue to do so despite the Federal Courts saying "Hey, discrimination is bad!" It took an act of the Supreme Court to get all those states that still had it on their books as illegal to strike such things off of their books. It was not until the Supreme Court stepped in and said to the nation "Look, knock this shit off," that it took hold.
We can nitpick about whether or not a large portion of the states themselves plus a plurality of citizens in the country holding on to racist and segregationist viewpoints until the mid 1970's (and even in to today, much as it disgusts me) counts as "a nation" if you want, but I see no reason to. I don't disagree that the award was politically motivated. I'm just of a different mind as to the exact nature of that motivation, is all.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Yes, he's pushing for changes and an end to nuclear weapons and Mideast peace and all these groovy things, but last time I checked, awards are usually given for accomplishments, not the promise of accomplishments.
It was simply another political decision. And a bad one.
no subject
Only the actual Nobel committee can say for sure, and they've spoken their peace - to whit: “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation."
Political or not, their decision is their decision and casting aspersions on it does nothing but engage in armchair politicking and second guessing. It's done. Better to figure out what to do when the inevitable backlash comes down from the oft-alluded "other side."
And for the record, I'm well aware that Loving Vs. Virginia was ruled on in 1967, and I'm well aware that it was individual states, not the Federal Government, that carried the miscegenation laws - you've actually made my point for me. 1967 is the very definition of "Not that long ago." Multiple states said "Y'all cain't do that!" and were allowed to continue to do so despite the Federal Courts saying "Hey, discrimination is bad!" It took an act of the Supreme Court to get all those states that still had it on their books as illegal to strike such things off of their books. It was not until the Supreme Court stepped in and said to the nation "Look, knock this shit off," that it took hold.
We can nitpick about whether or not a large portion of the states themselves plus a plurality of citizens in the country holding on to racist and segregationist viewpoints until the mid 1970's (and even in to today, much as it disgusts me) counts as "a nation" if you want, but I see no reason to. I don't disagree that the award was politically motivated. I'm just of a different mind as to the exact nature of that motivation, is all.