Petition to strip Suu Kyi of peace prize due to Rohingya crisis

[mr friendly guy]

This hasn't been reported far from mainstream western news outlets, but its still early days
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... n-suu-kyi/

Rohingya crisis: 365,000 sign petition calling for Aung San Suu Kyi to be stripped of Nobel Peace Prize

Agence France-Presse
7 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 1:34PM
Thousands of people have signed an online petition calling for the Nobel committee to revoke Aung San Suu Kyi's peace prize over the Myanmar government's treatment of its Rohingya Muslims.

But the Norwegian Nobel committee has ruled out any such move, saying only that the work which led to the awarding of the prize was taken into account.

The Change.Org petition has gathered over 365,000 signatures as of Thursday, reflecting growing outrage over a massive security sweep in Rakhine state by Myanmar forces after a series of deadly ambushes by Rohingya militants.

"The de facto ruler of Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi has done virtually nothing to stop this crime against humanity in her country," the petition says.

Suu Kyi was awarded the prize in 1991, while under house arrest at the hands of Myanmar's military junta, from which she was released in 2010. She then went on to lead her party through the country's first credible elections since independence.

But her government has faced international condemnation for the army's response to the crisis as refugees arrive in Bangladesh with stories of murder, rape and burned villages at the hands of soldiers.

The United Nations said Thursday that about 164,000 mostly Rohingya refugees have escaped to Bangladesh in the past two weeks, meaning more than a quarter of a million have fled since fighting broke out in October.

Suu Kyi lashed out this week at what she called "a huge iceberg of misinformation" over the crisis, "with the aim of promoting the interest of the terrorists".

In Oslo, Olav Njolstad, head of the Nobel Institute, said it was impossible to strip a Nobel laureate of an award once it has been bestowed.

"Neither Alfred Nobel's will nor the statutes of the Nobel Foundation provide for the possibility that a Nobel Prize - whether for physics, chemistry, medicine, literature or peace - can be revoked," he told AFP.

"Only the efforts made by a laureate before the attribution of a prize are evaluated by the Nobel committee," he said, and not any subsequent actions.

There doesn't seem to be a mechanism to strip someone of a Nobel Prize. Although the number of signatures (now over 400,000) could serve as a rebuke to the Nobel committee. However, even if there was a method to do this, I would not sign a petition. Not because I think disagree with the sentiment that she has done a poor job of dealing with the pogroms against the Rohingyas, but because implicit in the petition is that the Nobel peace prize is actually worth anything (as opposed to other Nobel prizes for the sciences). The peace prize is a joke and given for political purposes.

If anyone is interested though, you can sign the petition here

[ray245]

There are too many people that treat the Nobel peace prize as some sort of prize to legitimise hero-worship. Even before she took political power, anyone who read up on Myanmar's history and her father would be aware of what sort of political stance she is representing.

But nope, let's hero-worship peace prize winner because they are too lazy to bother reading up about the history of the region.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, this is hardly the first time the Peace Prize has been given to a highly dubious recipient.

Edit: That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a mechanism for revoking it.

[mr friendly guy]

There are too many people that treat the Nobel peace prize as some sort of prize to legitimise hero-worship. Even before she took political power, anyone who read up on Myanmar's history and her father would be aware of what sort of political stance she is representing.

But nope, let's hero-worship peace prize winner because they are too lazy to bother reading up about the history of the region.

Could you elaborate on this?

There are clearly Nobel peace prize winners who at a cursory glance you could see some problems with their ideology eg Liu "Iraq war is awesome" Xiaobo and His Holiness "lets ethnically cleanse people of the wrong ethnic group" the Dalai Lama. I don't know too much about Suu Kyi aside from what I remember as a child which we hear from Western propaganda.

[ray245]

There are too many people that treat the Nobel peace prize as some sort of prize to legitimise hero-worship. Even before she took political power, anyone who read up on Myanmar's history and her father would be aware of what sort of political stance she is representing.

But nope, let's hero-worship peace prize winner because they are too lazy to bother reading up about the history of the region.

Could you elaborate on this?

There are clearly Nobel peace prize winners who at a cursory glance you could see some problems with their ideology eg Liu "Iraq war is awesome" Xiaobo and His Holiness "lets ethnically cleanse people of the wrong ethnic group" the Dalai Lama. I don't know too much about Suu Kyi aside from what I remember as a child which we hear from Western propaganda.

Her father was one of the modern founding leaders of Myanmar. A part of her support today has always come from her father's role in the country's history.

And one of the major tenants of Burmese nationalism has always been about the importance of the country as a Buddhist state. Her being a Burmese nationalist that ascribe to those ideas shouldn't be that weird to many people. She's a leading advocate for democracy, but that has never prohibited her from being a Burmese nationalist. Someone who won support from the Burmese population in an election is highly unlikely to be someone that actively sought to defend the Rohingyas as being Burmese. The Rohingyas has been seen as unwelcome migrants from India/Bangladesh for a very long time. To defend the Rohingyas as a Burmese politician is to commit political suicide.

[ray245]

Deleted. Double Post

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is:

You don't need to be a uniformly good person, or even a uniformly good writer, to earn the Nobel Prize for literature. You just need to write one really good book.

To get the Prize for chemistry, physics, economics, or medicine, you don't need to have been a scientific supergenius all your life, or to be right in every scientific debate you've ever had. You just need to make one really great discovery.

So, to earn the Nobel Peace Prize, is the rule that you have to be a uniquely and remarkably peaceful person throughout your life, always enlightened and humanitarian?

Or is the rule that you have to perform one really great act, that leads to some kind of peace?

[ray245]

So, to earn the Nobel Peace Prize, is the rule that you have to be a uniquely and remarkably peaceful person throughout your life, always enlightened and humanitarian?

Or is the rule that you have to perform one really great act, that leads to some kind of peace?

It's completely arbitrary. Aung Sung Suu Kyi won the peace prize because she advocated non-violent peaceful demonstration for elections and democracy in Myanmar. That is true. And in a way, she has managed to help Myanmar transit from a complete military junta to some form of democracy and opening up of her country.

The problem was a wide majority of Burmese across different political spectrum see the Rohingyas as illegal migrants. With western, democratically elected leaders often taking a harsh and hardline stance against migrants, especially against those deemed illegal migrants, is it really that hard to imagine Aung Sung Suu Kyi taking a similar stance? She's basically the Myanmar version of Trump, except the Myanmar military are far more problematic than the US police and the border force.

Just because someone is fighting for democracy has never stopped them from being a right-wing Democratic nationalist politician with a tough anti-immigrant stance.

[Dominus Atheos]

Not strictly related, but can I just mention that it bugs me when people talk about "the tyrannical oppression of Myanmar's ethnic minorities".

We were supposed to be past this after their democratic elections, but if they're back to ethnic cleansing, then I'm back to calling them Burma.

[ray245]

Not strictly related, but can I just mention that it bugs me when people talk about "the tyrannical oppression of Myanmar's ethnic minorities".

We were supposed to be past this after their democratic elections, but if they're back to ethnic cleansing, then I'm back to calling them Burma.

Why? Is democracy something that would stop this sort of thing?

[Flagg]

There doesn't seem to be a mechanism to strip someone of a Nobel Prize. Although the number of signatures (now over 400,000) could serve as a rebuke to the Nobel committee. However, even if there was a method to do this, I would not sign a petition. Not because I think disagree with the sentiment that she has done a poor job of dealing with the pogroms against the Rohingyas, but because implicit in the petition is that the Nobel peace prize is actually worth anything (as opposed to other Nobel prizes for the sciences). The peace prize is a joke and given for political purposes.

If anyone is interested though, you can sign the petition here

I don't care about the Nobel Peace Prize, more about trying to curb what this shit is doing. I mean if we were going to be taking Nobel Peace Prizes away I'd start with Obama's.

[Flagg]

There are too many people that treat the Nobel peace prize as some sort of prize to legitimise hero-worship. Even before she took political power, anyone who read up on Myanmar's history and her father would be aware of what sort of political stance she is representing.

But nope, let's hero-worship peace prize winner because they are too lazy to bother reading up about the history of the region.

Could you elaborate on this?

There are clearly Nobel peace prize winners who at a cursory glance you could see some problems with their ideology eg Liu "Iraq war is awesome" Xiaobo and His Holiness "lets ethnically cleanse people of the wrong ethnic group" the Dalai Lama. I don't know too much about Suu Kyi aside from what I remember as a child which we hear from Western propaganda.

You're not supposed to bad mouth the Dalai Lama, bro. Who's next, Mother Theresa and Gandhi?

[Simon_Jester]

So, to earn the Nobel Peace Prize, is the rule that you have to be a uniquely and remarkably peaceful person throughout your life, always enlightened and humanitarian?

Or is the rule that you have to perform one really great act, that leads to some kind of peace?

It's completely arbitrary. Aung Sung Suu Kyi won the peace prize because she advocated non-violent peaceful demonstration for elections and democracy in Myanmar. That is true. And in a way, she has managed to help Myanmar transit from a complete military junta to some form of democracy and opening up of her country.

The problem was a wide majority of Burmese across different political spectrum see the Rohingyas as illegal migrants. With western, democratically elected leaders often taking a harsh and hardline stance against migrants, especially against those deemed illegal migrants, is it really that hard to imagine Aung Sung Suu Kyi taking a similar stance? She's basically the Myanmar version of Trump, except the Myanmar military are far more problematic than the US police and the border force.

Just because someone is fighting for democracy has never stopped them from being a right-wing Democratic nationalist politician with a tough anti-immigrant stance.

You didn't answer the question.

Aung Sung Suu Kyi received the Nobel Peace Prize for one great act, or rather, for an action carried out over an extended period of time. An action that contributed to the comparatively nonviolent downfall of a military junta, one that was brutally suppressing all Burmese people, including the Rohingya. Now, she is advocating continuing the oppression of the Rohingya, but not of other Burmese people.

So is the Nobel Peace Prize awarded:

1) For performing a specific outstanding action, as judged by the committee at the time they give the award, without reference to other actions at other times?

2) For lifelong contributions to the specific field, such that if a recipient later commits an act that undermines the field, the prize can be revoked? Say, suppose a prizewinning physicist later goes on to become one of the most stubborn opponents of an obviously correct new physical theory. Suppose that ten or twenty years later it becomes clear that their obstructionism and opposition was a major setback for research in this field. Could their prize be revoked for harming the advance of physics?

3) For meeting some specific set of criteria that don't involve the specific field alone, and that do involve lifelong vetting by the Nobel committee? Vetting the prizewinners to make sure that they remain worthy of the prize, so that a prizewinning chemist or author would lose their prize if, say, they later go on to become an axe murderer?

I mean, am I overlooking a fourth possibility? Because the three possibilities above seem to cover all the space available. And they're mutually exclusive. So which is it?

None of this is to say that Kyi should continue persecuting the Rohingya; she obviously should not. Censuring her via any appropriate means is fitting and proper. I am specifically restricting myself to the question: How do you view the Nobel Prize?

[mr friendly guy]

So, to earn the Nobel Peace Prize, is the rule that you have to be a uniquely and remarkably peaceful person throughout your life, always enlightened and humanitarian?

Or is the rule that you have to perform one really great act, that leads to some kind of peace?

It appears to be somewhat arbitrary. Although with some it was quite obvious if we dig deep into some nominess, they clearly have some tendencies which are anything but peaceful.

Edit - to elaborate, some of them are awarded for one good action (even if its quite hard to see how it is peace related, eg Al Gore's stance on climate change) and some are awarded for "potential" eg Barack Obama (the Nobel committee even stated that was part of why they gave it to Obama).

I don't care about the Nobel Peace Prize, more about trying to curb what this shit is doing. I mean if we were going to be taking Nobel Peace Prizes away I'd start with Obama's.

I would go with Kissinger's personally, but Obama isn't exactly a great candidate either.

You're not supposed to bad mouth the Dalai Lama, bro. Who's next, Mother Theresa and Gandhi?

No need. Christopher Hitchens, Penn and Teller, even our emperor here already bad mouthed her already. Penn and Teller also did a number on Gandhi, relating to how he saw black people. Hint, not in a good light.

[ray245]

You didn't answer the question.

Aung Sung Suu Kyi received the Nobel Peace Prize for one great act, or rather, for an action carried out over an extended period of time. An action that contributed to the comparatively nonviolent downfall of a military junta, one that was brutally suppressing all Burmese people, including the Rohingya. Now, she is advocating continuing the oppression of the Rohingya, but not of other Burmese people.

So is the Nobel Peace Prize awarded:

1) For performing a specific outstanding action, as judged by the committee at the time they give the award, without reference to other actions at other times?

2) For lifelong contributions to the specific field, such that if a recipient later commits an act that undermines the field, the prize can be revoked? Say, suppose a prizewinning physicist later goes on to become one of the most stubborn opponents of an obviously correct new physical theory. Suppose that ten or twenty years later it becomes clear that their obstructionism and opposition was a major setback for research in this field. Could their prize be revoked for harming the advance of physics?

3) For meeting some specific set of criteria that don't involve the specific field alone, and that do involve lifelong vetting by the Nobel committee? Vetting the prizewinners to make sure that they remain worthy of the prize, so that a prizewinning chemist or author would lose their prize if, say, they later go on to become an axe murderer?

I mean, am I overlooking a fourth possibility? Because the three possibilities above seem to cover all the space available. And they're mutually exclusive. So which is it?

None of this is to say that Kyi should continue persecuting the Rohingya; she obviously should not. Censuring her via any appropriate means is fitting and proper. I am specifically restricting myself to the question: How do you view the Nobel Prize?

Well this is listed on the Nobel prize website citing why they gave her that prize:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes ... index.html

The Nobel Peace Prize 1991 was awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi "for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights".

Her winning it for a non-violent struggle to transform the country from junta-ruled to partial democracy is still relevant to this day, since she is still operating within Burmese democratic structure.

The question is did she ever advocated for human rights in accordance to the Nobel peace prize committee? To my knowledge, she has never defended the Rohingyas, nor did she ever called for steps to treat the Rohingyas to be accepted as citizens of Myanmar. So in other words, the question is did she even deserve the peace prize in the first place? If the Nobel peace prize committee were the one that made a mistake because no one bothered to do any serious research on her views, they should be able to rescind it.

So in other words, the standards for winning the peace prize has always been rather arbitrary and is purely based on the personal preference of the Nobel Peace Prize committee members. So I would go with option 4: Completely arbitrary and based on the personal views/preference of the committee members.

The peace prize has always been a prize that let people create political heroes in some form. It's an easy tool to advocate certain specific ideas ( whether these are good or bad is not the point here).

[Flagg]

I don't care about the Nobel Peace Prize, more about trying to curb what this shit is doing. I mean if we were going to be taking Nobel Peace Prizes away I'd start with Obama's.

I would go with Kissinger's personally, but Obama isn't exactly a great candidate either.

If Kissinger has one it's already meaningless.

You're not supposed to bad mouth the Dalai Lama, bro. Who's next, Mother Theresa and Gandhi?

No need. Christopher Hitchens, Penn and Teller, even our emperor here already bad mouthed her already. Penn and Teller also did a number on Gandhi, relating to how he saw black people. Hint, not in a good light.

I'm well aware.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not strictly related, but can I just mention that it bugs me when people talk about "the tyrannical oppression of Myanmar's ethnic minorities".

We were supposed to be past this after their democratic elections, but if they're back to ethnic cleansing, then I'm back to calling them Burma.

Why? Is democracy something that would stop this sort of thing?

It depends on how you define democracy, i.e. "rule by the people".

If you follow a very simplistic definition of "rule by the people", defining it as rule by the will of the majority, then you could have a democratic state that engaged in such atrocities. But I doubt it would remain democratic even by that definition for long, as such a society would have set a precedent for the forced subjugation or destruction of "undesirables" that could be turned on other groups as well.

If you adopt a more complex and nuanced definition of democracy as a society in which all of the people have a voice, and rights, even if not in the majority/in power, then no society that allowed such acts could be considered democratic.

[ray245]

Not strictly related, but can I just mention that it bugs me when people talk about "the tyrannical oppression of Myanmar's ethnic minorities".

We were supposed to be past this after their democratic elections, but if they're back to ethnic cleansing, then I'm back to calling them Burma.

Why? Is democracy something that would stop this sort of thing?

It depends on how you define democracy, i.e. "rule by the people".

If you follow a very simplistic definition of "rule by the people", defining it as rule by the will of the majority, then you could have a democratic state that engaged in such atrocities. But I doubt it would remain democratic even by that definition for long, as such a society would have set a precedent for the forced subjugation or destruction of "undesirables" that could be turned on other groups as well.

If you adopt a more complex and nuanced definition of democracy as a society in which all of the people have a voice, and rights, even if not in the majority/in power, then no society that allowed such acts could be considered democratic.

Doesn't that also applies to democratic states like the US, which has a long history of pushing native Americans backs under elected government? So the US shouldn't be considered democratic as well?

[The Romulan Republic]

Why? Is democracy something that would stop this sort of thing?

It depends on how you define democracy, i.e. "rule by the people".

If you follow a very simplistic definition of "rule by the people", defining it as rule by the will of the majority, then you could have a democratic state that engaged in such atrocities. But I doubt it would remain democratic even by that definition for long, as such a society would have set a precedent for the forced subjugation or destruction of "undesirables" that could be turned on other groups as well.

If you adopt a more complex and nuanced definition of democracy as a society in which all of the people have a voice, and rights, even if not in the majority/in power, then no society that allowed such acts could be considered democratic.

Doesn't that also applies to democratic states like the US, which has a long history of pushing native Americans backs under elected government? So the US shouldn't be considered democratic as well?

By modern standards, no, I wouldn't consider the US democratic, or at least not fully democratic by the second definition. Certainly not during the height of Westward colonial expansion and slavery, and to some extent not even today.

But then, I think the Electoral College alone disqualifies us from being a fully democratic state, though that's another topic.

[ray245]

By modern standards, no, I wouldn't consider the US democratic, or at least not fully democratic by the second definition. Certainly not during the height of Westward colonial expansion and slavery, and to some extent not even today.

But then, I think the Electoral College alone disqualifies us from being a fully democratic state, though that's another topic.

Is there sufficient political will in Myanmar to actually allow the country to become a modern, liberal western style democracy? If not, it just feels naive to even think that Myanmar will suddenly turn into a western style democracy just because it had elections. It's like the whole Iraq mess, expecting Iraq to turn into a Western style democracy just because Saddam is gone.

Anyone who is disappointed with Aung Sang Suu Kyi only has themselves to blame, because they created an imagery idol of worship that was never real, to begin with. It just feels quite arrogant for people to assume she is building a western liberal democracy just because she was educated in a Western country.

[The Romulan Republic]

By modern standards, no, I wouldn't consider the US democratic, or at least not fully democratic by the second definition. Certainly not during the height of Westward colonial expansion and slavery, and to some extent not even today.

But then, I think the Electoral College alone disqualifies us from being a fully democratic state, though that's another topic.

Is there sufficient political will in Myanmar to actually allow the country to become a modern, liberal western style democracy? If not, it just feels naive to even think that Myanmar will suddenly turn into a western style democracy just because it had elections. It's like the whole Iraq mess, expecting Iraq to turn into a Western style democracy just because Saddam is gone.

I didn't say I expected it to do so.

I simply pointed out that under certain definitions of democracy, it has not. Do you dispute that?

And I see no need to drag the question of Iraq into this at all. They're rather different situations, to put it mildly.

Anyone who is disappointed with Aung Sang Suu Kyi only has themselves to blame, because they created an imagery idol of worship that was never real, to begin with. It just feels quite arrogant for people to assume she is building a western liberal democracy just because she was educated in a Western country.

Maybe, but that's a separate issue from what I was arguing, which is that its dubious to consider a country truly "democratic" if it allows persecution (up to and including mass murder) of minorities, and that by that standard, Myanmar is not one, regardless of weather it was realistic to expect it to be one.

That said, I'd like to think that "its wrong to murder minorities" is not a purely western value, and I do not think it is "arrogant" to hold other countries to at least that minimal standard, just as I try to hold my own.

[Simon_Jester]

The question is did she ever advocated for human rights in accordance to the Nobel peace prize committee? To my knowledge, she has never defended the Rohingyas, nor did she ever called for steps to treat the Rohingyas to be accepted as citizens of Myanmar. So in other words, the question is did she even deserve the peace prize in the first place? If the Nobel peace prize committee were the one that made a mistake because no one bothered to do any serious research on her views, they should be able to rescind it.

The junta oppressed everyone, including both the Rohingyas and the non-Rohingyas. Kyi's opposition to the junta could support human rights, regardless of whether she additionally supported equality for the Rohingyas.

It's very hard to find perfect heroes. If you go looking for their weaknesses, for their disagreeable views, or for the limits of their tolerance and humanitarianism, you will find those things.

All people are, metaphorically, a mix of gold and clay. If the presence of clay invalidates the existence of the gold, then it's pointless to even bother awarding anything to anyone, or recognizing anyone for good deeds. Furthermore, it's pointless to bother criticizing the people who receive such awards, because the awards themselves are meaningless, because they're being awarded to flawed and imperfect beings.

If this sounds silly, it should- because the underlying idea is silly. Singling out only the bad side of a person's reputation, and turning the narrative surrounding even their good deeds into "if they did good deed X, why didn't they do good deed Y as well?" is an extremely silly way to evaluate historical figures.

So in other words, the standards for winning the peace prize has always been rather arbitrary and is purely based on the personal preference of the Nobel Peace Prize committee members. So I would go with option 4: Completely arbitrary and based on the personal views/preference of the committee members.

Actually, that doesn't exclude any of the other three options. Do the committee members sometimes award the prize for "one great act" and sometimes for "lifelong contributions to the field?" My impression is that they always pick a specific action or category of actions, that occurred in the past, and give the award for that.

The point being that if the award is given for a single action, it cannot be revoked because of another unrelated action that takes place decades later.

Doesn't that also applies to democratic states like the US, which has a long history of pushing native Americans backs under elected government? So the US shouldn't be considered democratic as well?

The Native Americans, specifically, were foreign nationals whose governments were independent of the US, at least until the US straight-up conquered them by force. If you want to make arguments about the US being undemocratic, you're better off targeting slavery and (especially) Jim Crow.

Democracies can in fact end up engaged in a war of conquest; we shouldn't lie to ourselves about that. However, the more democratic a society is, the less likely it is to engage in internal abuse of the people within its jurisdiction.

By modern standards, no, I wouldn't consider the US democratic, or at least not fully democratic by the second definition. Certainly not during the height of Westward colonial expansion and slavery, and to some extent not even today.

But then, I think the Electoral College alone disqualifies us from being a fully democratic state, though that's another topic.

Democracy exists on a continuum; the modern US is a lot closer to the "democracy" end of the continuum than to the "tyranny" end. The principle of majority rule and minority rights, of the rule of law and of government with the consent of the governed, do not hold all the time in all places and all ways, but they hold often enough and extensively enough to be normative and broadly accepted in recognizable form.

[ray245]

I didn't say I expected it to do so.

I simply pointed out that under certain definitions of democracy, it has not. Do you dispute that?

My dispute lies in what we typically assume a democratic nation to be. People from liberal western democracies seem to assume most democracies are similar enough to them that those countries would be more sensible than to engage in ethnic cleansing. Those assumptions are not helpful because most democracies aren't as stable or well-established as the liberal western countries.

My original rebuttal was directed at Dominus Atheos, for his assumption that Myanmar is supposedly better than this just because they had elections. I feel that this is a rather simplistic black/white understanding of democracies.

And I see no need to drag the question of Iraq into this at all. They're rather different situations, to put it mildly.

Dominus Atheos's view of democracy seems to be the kind of thinking that democracy can do no wrong, and everything will be solved by democracy. This is the kind of thinking that help enabled the Iraq War back in 2002/3.

Maybe, but that's a separate issue from what I was arguing, which is that its dubious to consider a country truly "democratic" if it allows persecution (up to and including mass murder) of minorities, and that by that standard, Myanmar is not one, regardless of weather it was realistic to expect it to be one.

Then that would eliminate a number of democracies all around the world. Persecution of minorities happens regardless of whether a country is democratic or not.

That said, I'd like to think that "its wrong to murder minorities" is not a purely western value, and I do not think it is "arrogant" to hold other countries to at least that minimal standard, just as I try to hold my own.

It's not a purely western value. But linking that morality with democracy is a western idea. The way I see it, you think truer democracy equates to better morals. I think those are completely different things that should not be intertwined. In other words, you don't need to be a democratic country to think that murdering minorities is morally wrong. Non-democratic countries can also come to that conclusion.

The junta oppressed everyone, including both the Rohingyas and the non-Rohingyas. Kyi's opposition to the junta could support human rights, regardless of whether she additionally supported equality for the Rohingyas.

It's very hard to find perfect heroes. If you go looking for their weaknesses, for their disagreeable views, or for the limits of their tolerance and humanitarianism, you will find those things.

All people are, metaphorically, a mix of gold and clay. If the presence of clay invalidates the existence of the gold, then it's pointless to even bother awarding anything to anyone, or recognizing anyone for good deeds. Furthermore, it's pointless to bother criticizing the people who receive such awards, because the awards themselves are meaningless, because they're being awarded to flawed and imperfect beings.

If this sounds silly, it should- because the underlying idea is silly. Singling out only the bad side of a person's reputation, and turning the narrative surrounding even their good deeds into "if they did good deed X, why didn't they do good deed Y as well?" is an extremely silly way to evaluate historical figures.

But that's what many people are saying, including her fellow Nobel Prize winners. People saw her as the perfect hero for their fight, when her stances are obvious to anyone doing a little basic research on her.

Actually, that doesn't exclude any of the other three options. Do the committee members sometimes award the prize for "one great act" and sometimes for "lifelong contributions to the field?" My impression is that they always pick a specific action or category of actions, that occurred in the past, and give the award for that.

The point being that if the award is given for a single action, it cannot be revoked because of another unrelated action that takes place decades later.

Then how do you explain Obama's award? He was given the award for the promises that is yet to come for his presidency. There has never been any consistency in the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Native Americans, specifically, were foreign nationals whose governments were independent of the US, at least until the US straight-up conquered them by force. If you want to make arguments about the US being undemocratic, you're better off targeting slavery and (especially) Jim Crow.

Democracies can in fact end up engaged in a war of conquest; we shouldn't lie to ourselves about that. However, the more democratic a society is, the less likely it is to engage in internal abuse of the people within its jurisdiction.

Except most democracies aren't democratic to the same level as the liberal western states. Liberal western democracies are the minority as opposed to the norm. I'm saying we shouldn't automatically assume democracies = liberal western democracies.

[Flagg]

So, to earn the Nobel Peace Prize, is the rule that you have to be a uniquely and remarkably peaceful person throughout your life, always enlightened and humanitarian?

Or is the rule that you have to perform one really great act, that leads to some kind of peace?

It appears to be somewhat arbitrary. Although with some it was quite obvious if we dig deep into some nominess, they clearly have some tendencies which are anything but peaceful.

Edit - to elaborate, some of them are awarded for one good action (even if its quite hard to see how it is peace related, eg Al Gore's stance on climate change) and some are awarded for "potential" eg Barack Obama (the Nobel committee even stated that was part of why they gave it to Obama).

Gore's is actually pretty straightforward if you look at things from a "preventing future conflict" view. Even while our dipshit politicians flat out deny its existence, the Pentagon is preparing for the reality that Global Climate Change is going to cause conflict due to resource shortages, refugees, and desertification. He's been working on the issue for decades and is certainly more deserving than Obama who frankly, won because he was black and got elected.

[The Romulan Republic]

My dispute lies in what we typically assume a democratic nation to be. People from liberal western democracies seem to assume most democracies are similar enough to them that those countries would be more sensible than to engage in ethnic cleansing. Those assumptions are not helpful because most democracies aren't as stable or well-established as the liberal western countries.

My original rebuttal was directed at Dominus Atheos, for his assumption that Myanmar is supposedly better than this just because they had elections. I feel that this is a rather simplistic black/white understanding of democracies.

Well, to be honest, I do think that their are certain criteria you have to meet, weather your country is western or non-western, to qualify as a democracy, and if it doesn't meet that, it cannot function as a democracy. Its something else. Broaden the meaning of the word too much, and it loses its meaning*.

That said, I make no assumptions about what the people of Myanmar feel, or are willing to do. And I would appreciate it if you try to avoid making assumptions about what my assumptions are. My arguments and views are my own, not anyone else's.

*Of course, one could also point out that no modern "democracy" bears much resemblance to the original form, which was Athenian democracy (and which would be highly undemocratic by modern standards, as it excluded women and, unless I'm much mistaken, permitted slavery).

Dominus Atheos's view of democracy seems to be the kind of thinking that democracy can do no wrong, and everything will be solved by democracy. This is the kind of thinking that help enabled the Iraq War back in 2002/3.

I won't try to speak for him, but that's certainly not my view.

I do think that democracy is, on the whole, the least problematic form of government yet devised, and perhaps the best devisable, but that does not mean that it cannot suffer catastrophic failures. Any human system can. Obviously.

Then that would eliminate a number of democracies all around the world. Persecution of minorities happens regardless of whether a country is democratic or not.

Yes, but there is a certain minimum bar that must be met to qualify, in my opinion.

But let's try to clear things up: How would you define democracy? Its easy to poke holes in someone else's definition and accuse them of western-centric bias, but its harder for me to respond when I'm not sure what definition you're basing your argument on.

It's not a purely western value. But linking that morality with democracy is a western idea.

Perhaps. But is it invalid to say that, while democracy is not necessary for that morality, that morality is necessary for democracy?

Again, it would help if you clarified how you define democracy.

The way I see it, you think truer democracy equates to better morals.

That is an oversimplification of my views on the matter.

I think that their are certain qualities a society must possess to be considered democratic (otherwise the term is meaningless), and that those are things I generally approve of, yes, but I am well aware that a democracy can be staggeringly immoral in other ways, and that a "democratic" system can be (and generally is) only partially and imperfectly democratic.

I think those are completely different things that should not be intertwined. In other words, you don't need to be a democratic country to think that murdering minorities is morally wrong. Non-democratic countries can also come to that conclusion.

I agree that a country does not have to be democratic to conclude that murdering minorities is wrong. However, a country arguably must conclude that murdering minorities is wrong in order to be truly democratic. Do you see the distinction?

Its much like how not all mammals are cats, but all cats are mammals.