Saturday 19 October 2013

Bullet Wounds and Dynamite

There's been a near supernatural aura around this year's Nobel peace nominations and the buildup to the award last Friday. Jon Stewart turned pantomine for that one night, prodding that deadly combination of white guilt and media aggrandization. Amazon probably drowned in request from places  like North Carolina ordering in their prized copies of 'I am Malala', a title that's preciously close to being a palindrome (that, frankly, was a dabble in the irrelevant). Most copies will spend eternity gathering dust, much like the statuette or medallion in the great decorated halls of OPCW.
There was a mad flurry articles in the Guardian, NY Times, and the 3 pages Huffington post dedicates to something that isn't Miley Cyrus's arse (I stole that joke from Jimmy Kimmel, that is how little effort I'm putting into humour for this piece). A subset of those claimed that it would be wrong for Malala Yousafzai to win the 2013 Nobel Memorial Prize for peace. Quite a few others claimed that Malala's win would have signified a triumph of western celebrity, and thus, deviate her from her cause. Here, I seek to do one or both of 2 things: firstly, and most importantly, I'd like to put it out there that the making of a Western celebrity wouldn't really be so bad for Malala. Secondly, a considerably more subservient and derivative point, almost to the extent of being a corollary, that the award to OPCW is a waste of humanity.
Right, so getting to it. The west, whatever that term may encapsulate, has a love for celebrity. For that sad story which they can 'awwww' over and feel better about the lives they think are miserable. The elimination of some rathher overweight contestant from X-factor or the plight of rape victims in Congo, it doesn't really matter, its the same hormonal rush followed by paste satisfaction upon having somehow, telekinetically, contributed. However, there is a tangibility to this claim to betterment that the awwwwers have, because it seems clear that massive corporations have harnessed the power of awwww by making people pay to text a vote for whomsoever Piers Morgan has bashed that week. And the cause of people like Malala, or Dr. Mukwege from Congo, could really benefit from similar tactics.
Her appearance on the Daily Show and the link to the MalalaFund exponentially boosted the monetary contributions from Americans and global fans of the show. A rise in sales of her memoir would also allow her a greater coffer with which to actualize the dreams, hopes and other intangibilities that would remain as such if it weren't for the increase in money. It is exactly in this venture that a Nobel would be bloody useful, to make people believe in the legitimacy of the cause, since, if the Swedes believe it, it must be good.
The other bit about awarding it to OPCW for I'm not sure what. Giving it to Mukwege's clinic in Congo would just make a much bigger financial difference, allowing a better influx of machinery and skilled workers.
The recent past has seen quite a furore about the Nobel committee's decisions with the peace prize, most notably for Barack Obama's hope and change and words. The prize hasnt lost legitimacy or status, but its becoming increasingly hard to understand the merit of the award. It would've been nice to see Malala give post-award interviews and see some suited agent make a tonne of money for all the books and pens she spoke about at the UN. Making it a panto won't be so bad.

No comments:

Post a Comment