TIL that in 1948 the Nobel Committee did not award the Nobel Peace Prize on the grounds that “there was no suitable living candidate”, implying that Mahatma Gandhi would have received it if it were not for his assassination earlier that year.

TIL that in 1948 the Nobel Committee did not award the Nobel Peace Prize on the grounds that “there was no suitable living candidate”, implying that Mahatma Gandhi would have received it if it were not for his assassination earlier that year.


To those in this thread wondering why he couldn't have a posthumous prize, the answer is a little complicated: 1. Gandhi didn't have any formal will and didn't own any property, nor was he associated with any organization. There was quite literally no one to accept the award (and the prize money that comes with it) on his behalf. 1. Yes, the Nobel Committee had awarded one posthumous prize prior to Gandhi's death, as u/Analbox mentioned. However the possibility and eligibility of a posthumous winner of a Nobel Prize is very circumstantial: only individuals who died between the time of their nomination and the decision of the committee were eligible.


Also, the Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded in 1914-1916, 1918, 1923, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1939-1943, 1948, 1955-1956, 1966-1967 and 1972. [https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/facts-on-the-nobel-peace-prize/](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/facts-on-the-nobel-peace-prize/)


They should have done that a lot more, considering some of the cases they did give out. Obama is an infamous example, but there's also the genocide apologist in Burma and that one Chinese guy advocating for colonialism, and plenty of others. At this point they could just hand Putin and Dear Chairman Xi peace prices too, they'd fit right in Edit: whoops, Liu Xiaobo was Chinese, not American, shows what good writing from memory does


I get that this is a hot take, but to say that the Norwegian Nobel Committee suffers some sort of moral blindspot for not foreseeing that Aung San Suu Kyi would fall from grace more than two an a half decades after bestowing her the honor isn't really a fair critique.


Aung Dan Sui Kyi suffered from the fact thats its easy to take the moral high ground when you have no power or to point out the injustice of your imprisonment. Its easy to appear peaceful when you can't fight. The true measure of a person's character is what they do when they get power In my limited knowledge Nelson Mandela and Aung Dan Sui Kyi make a great example of two people that have very similar experiences that elevate them to the position the reach and then they both made choices that sent them on different paths. Its not the nobel committie that made poor choices.


Aung San Suu Kyi got it in 1991, more than 20 years before the genocide. It's not like they can read the future.


Has there ever been one rescinded?


There’s no procedure for doing so. The committee probably doesn’t want to create one because then people would call on them to revoke it from a bunch of people, which would be really bad PR.


It brings to my mind the UK's knighthood, they put these people on a pedestal meanwhile Robert Mugabe and Benito Mussolini were both knighted. Edit: Also Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize, that's one of the worst examples


I was alive when Osama Bin Laden was given a key to my home city by the mayor, Coleman Young. At the time he was a reputable businessman, noted Mujahideen supporter, and friend of the CIA. How times change!


I think you're confusing Bin Laden with Saddam Hussein, but either way they're one of a handful of people with the keys to the city of Detroit, along with er... [Elmo?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Keys_to_the_City_in_the_United_States#Detroit)


Lolwhat? Kissinger won a Nobel peace prize? The dude was the most corrupt, pro-war advisor there was. Now I *know* these prizes don't mean shit.


Can’t forget Kissinger after he dragged out the war lmao


> that one Chinese-American guy advocating for colonialism Who you're referring to?


They’ve given it to: - Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, major leaders of both sides of the Vietnam War, for agreeing to stop fighting each other - though the latter, almost uniquely, refused the prize on the grounds of being a general in the midst of a war... (can you imagine?) - Sakharov, who gave the Soviets the H-bomb - Anwar Sadat (who attacked Israel during Yom Kippur) and Menachem Begin (who bombed the King David Hotel) - for deigning to quit fighting each other (my great aunt worked at the Norwegian palace and had to clear out of the way when Begin and his uzi-wielding guards came to claim ‘peace prize yes’)... - Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres (for briefly having a breather during a deadly intifada) - Gorbachev, for slowly weening off being Soviet dictator, Afghanistan invader, and Chernobyl cover-upper - to FW De Klerk, for being the equivalent for Apartheid South Africa - ie, being entirely part and even major enactor of the white supremacist system, being a hardliner for years, and even ending up running it... but eventually agreeing to stop All these to [international conspiracy nuts](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-10-09/nobel-peace-laureate-claims-hiv-deliberately/565752 ) to a former US VP who made a well-meaning but only *mostly* informed video on climate (honestly another issue) but got bigger cred for it than all the relevant scientists, to a certain person for... Chicago community leadership (?)... before ordering numerous drone strikes... Meanwhile, who didn’t get it? Gandhi. I mean... pffft, what does he have to do with movements for peace in the 20th century? And I mean, he ordered *no* murders. Total amateur.


To be fair the temporary stop in fighting is a permanent peace agreement that holds since 42 years (and counting).


One which Jimmy Carter - who never received his prize till decades later for something else - had to literally [give them locked-in time-out at Camp David so they’d stop fighting like children.](https://www.history.com/.amp/news/jimmy-carter-camp-david-accords-egypt-israel) But yeah, Israel and Egypt in particular have kept to it. This after both those *particular* awardees committed violent and perfidious acts beyond what 99.99% of people have ever done. But they stopped doing it! Surprised they never gave it to Gaddafi for handing over and ending the contents of his nuclear program.


The war wasn’t started by either of them but it was ended by both of them and if it wasn’t for them Sinai would probably be like Gaza and there would be far more arms and rockets smuggled into Hamas’ hands right now. “But they stopped it” doesn’t have the same derisive effect you’re aiming at, especially considering that Sadat was inextricably considered beholden to Nasser’s legacy and literally died for departing from it.


FYI, the Nobel Peace Prize is not a prize for being a peaceful person, but for having done a peaceful act in the past year. That is in purpose. They want the recipient to be politically relevant, that is why the prize can only be awarded for actions in the last year. They could easily make the prize recipients more acceptable. Instead of giving them to politicians a year after their actions, they could pick some 80 year old person that had lived a good peaceful life and then have an award cerenomy. Get some quiet woman who ran an African orphanage for her entire life and doublecheck that she never made a racist statement, or pick any guy who helped refugees 30 years ago and then went back into a regular job until retirement. You'd immediately nuke all the controversy out of the awards with that method, but you'd also make them politically about as relevant as the Oscars.


Thank you for giving me a more nuanced understanding. I always appreciate a civil correction on this site.


I appreciate your contributions to reddit u/Analbox


I choose to believe that Ana Lebox misspelled her username when she signed up.


I'm pretty sure it's French. Ana L'Box


Unfortunately that’s not how French liaisons work :( Only words that start with a vowel can be liaised to, so it would have to be Ana L’Ebox Examples: l’école le café la voiture


It was probably a freedom fighter named Analbo X


Looking at their profile picture is a compelling argument that this is not the case.


Is that a electronic anal box?


So much better than the manual version.


Ann Albox was already taken.


Le box? What the hell is that?!


It’s what le grille came in


But what came in the anal box?




and daddy's cum


What exactly is an “albox” ?


I believe that was supposed to be a capital "i" it's an AI Box, it's just one of those new fancy tech things Like a pet rock. But it's a box. And it vibrates. And you can put it in your ass if you want. Oh wait...that's analbox. Nevermind.


It's just her name, Ana L Box.




Oh, is that was you appreciates about this site?


Let's go easy over there, Squirelly Dan


Get this guy a fuckin' Puppers


Take it down aboot 20% there squirrelly Dan.


Pump the brakes there, bud


How bout you take it down about 20% there


Thank you for explaining. And explaining kindly.


Dear diary, Today OP was a pretty cool guy.


[Aw thanks!](https://i.imgur.com/sfWxNy0.jpg)




He made you say Analbox hehe


No. He allowed him to say it.


> Yes, the Nobel Committee had awarded one posthumous prize prior to Gandhi's death, as u/Analbox mentioned God bless Reddit




He didn't have a daughter. 4 sons- out of which 3 were surviving.




A good trivia question is "Which famous Indian independence leader was the father of Indira Gandhi?" The answer is Jawaharlal Nehru. India's husband was the journalist, independence activist, and politician Feroze Ghandy. He changed the spelling of his last name to Gandhi in a deliberate effort to emulate the Mahatma.


Well, she was the daughter of *one of* India's foundational figures... Jawaharlal Nehru Edit: I should say: foundational to the modern Indian state.


This is the trick the “Gandhi” Family has used to win Elections since Independence


What about Gandhi's ashram Sevagram where he lived? The money could be accepted by a member of the ashram donate to the community. He also had living children like his son Manilal, Ramdas or Devdas who could have accepted the award for him.


Ahh yes analbox has done it again


How did I not know that Gandhi was assassinated?


I guess not everybody had to watch the 3 hour long Gandhi movie starring Ben Kingsley in school


Three hours of watching a film instead of class? That's a fucking dream! Bonus points if it's the 70s Romeo & Juliet with nudity.


My old roommate was taking Latin and one day they just watched *Monty Python's Life of Brian*


We watched Life of Brian in a high school religion class (it was a Jesuit school) and we watched Holy Grail in World History.


Man, only the Jesuits would show a film that's a pisstake on their own religion in one of their schools.


I guess they understood that the movie wasn't really about Jesus but Brian, but yeah as far as Catholic orders go Jesuits are probably the most open minded.


I feel like the Augustinian’s are probably up there too


It may not have been about Jesus but it was sure as shit about Catholicism


Hmmm I'd say it was really about Christianity and dogma in general rather than Catholicism in particular.


For whatever reason, Monty Python and Mel Brooks seem to be quite popular with Jesuits/Jesuit school teachers. Nearly everyone I've met who went to one watched at least the Torquemada scene and a handful of MP sketches in class at some point if not the whole films.


There were 2 types of teachers. There were Python teachers, and there were The Mission teachers. I must have seen that movie 4 times during various classes.


Your world history teacher at a Jesuit high school showed you Holy Grail too? Her name didn't start with a T did it? I tried doing a Life of Brian joke on my Latin teacher by sneaking in her class before my class period and writing the incorrect graffiti expecting her to get it but instead she just erased it saying it was gibberish and then went into a rant about gerunds and McDonald's hamburgers (can't get the Mac [verb? Subject? Hell if I remember] if you don't have the money [gerund]).


No, his name started with a G.


Teacher hangover day.


"People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse?"


Understand? Now write it a hundred times.


Very appropriate. My son's high school Latin class watched it a few years ago. Of course they sent home permission slips prior to the viewing.


What's the relevance there? Please excuse my ignorance I haven't watched the movie since I was far too young to understand, ~7 then, 30 now


There's an extended sequence where Brian is caught putting up anti-Roman graffiti, and instead of arresting him they correct his terrible Latin grammar


The Roman corrects Brian exactly like a classic English schoolmaster, including the casual violence and declension torture.


They give him the "Bart Simpson Detention" punishment.


Probably the famous "Romans go home" sketch. https://youtu.be/0lczHvB3Y9s


The captions on this video are weird. "Beautiful sunrise" isn't a sound.


I guess you’ve never seen JoJo’s.


The picture quality on this is incredible compared to how I remember it


Framerate is exceptional too


I’m assuming because it’s set in Roman times and then there’s that [scene where Roman soldiers correct Brian’s Latin](https://youtu.be/0lczHvB3Y9s)


shows full frontal nudity in one scene


One? Do we not count old man balls?


One of my teachers in high school went to a Rolling Stones concert on a week night and showed up at 1st period pushing a TV cart into the classroom. He put in a random VHS tape (can't remember which one but it was not educational), went to his desk and laid his head down. He didn't say a single word. That was one of my favorite days in school.


We watched that in Latin class. Towards the end of my second year, my Latin teacher had already basically been chased out of town (it was a small town and the school clique didn't like her). So we watched X-Men 3 for our final. We had the morning class and she was having to work a second job, so she would sleep and we would just try to be quiet because we actually liked her.


That's kinda sad


It’s very important to have a good reference on the proper pronunciation of Biggus Dickus


In all fairness there's a whole scene where they go into a nuanced explination of latin grammer that's fully accurate. It's also a really good movie.


I used to show the wonderful 1984 film Amadeus to my Music Appreciation classes. That film sparked my interest in classical music, and it engaged so many students. A lot of people do not know about how Mozart died, either. Without spoiling the film, if u do watch the film (and you should even if u do not care for classical music), the film does take its creative license with how Mozart died, so do a little research when you finish.


Wait that movie was from 1984?! My art history teacher who also taught my history of cinema included it and I thought it was just an amazing time piece


Yep 1984. I think Abraham as Salieri is my favorite screen performance of all time.


Our teacher stood in front of the TV for the boobs but let us see the man-ass


lmao i had an entire class in my senior year called "history through film" that was literally just all of us watching films based on historical events. Black Hawk Down, Glory, Hurt Locker, Norma Rae, Munich...lots of good shit.


We watched that on old school VHS. My teacher leapt up to fast forward through the nudity, and accidentally hit pause instead - on a near perfect screenshot of Olivia Hussey's glorious rack. We got a much better view than if she hadn't tried to protect our innocent eyes from the boobage.


I remember our teacher doing that with Helena Bonham Carter's nude scene in Margaret's Museum. He moved quick for a portly man.


Our teacher paused it bon the boob and the butt shots to be fair


Back in highschool I carried around a copy of School of Rock because we had teachers leave class for long periods of time often enough to warrant it. Came in handy a lot, on 2 occasions the teacher came back and sat right down with us saying something like “Well we weren’t gonna learn much today, anyway.” Good times. Brought Antz for like a month too but it wasn’t as big a hit, fuckin philistines.


In my 9th grade English class we watched O Brother Where Art Thou instead of reading The Odyssey, it was amazing


I remember watching that as a kid and thinking it was bad, and then the teacher put on the Leo DiCaprio gangsta Romeo and Juliet. Had me wishing we could go back to the 70s one.


Fucking wrong. Romeo x Juliet is fucking incredible.


Lol, the one with Leo and Claire Danes is actually Romeo + Juliet




I got the pleasure of deciding on which version of the film I got to show to my high school English class. I remembered back to my freshman English class and knew exactly what I had to do. It wasn't even fair - the '68 version never stood a chance. The look of sheer confusion when Tybolt and Benvolio "drew swords" in a gas station was priceless. Definitely a highlight of my career.


Lol, I forgot the gangsta Romeo and Juliet was a thing. My teacher had us watch both that and the original. Was nice getting a like a week’s worth of classes just watching movies.


The original...


We all hopped on the School Bus and went back to the 16th century. Ms. Frizzle made sure we got back before lunch. (I believe they are referring to the 1968 version.)


Wish more schools would show the superior *Romeo Must Die*


in like 7th or 8th grade we watched all of roots


I saw that at a festival just a couple years ago, and I still didn't remember he was assassinated.


That’s pretty funny, because that’s how the movie starts! Then it flashes back.


World record for most extras ever in a movie scene.


I strangely really loved that movie after seeing it in class one day. We would watch it in half hour increments and I was so hyped up to watch it every time. We also watched Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid which I think is super long. I'm starting to thing my teacher really just wanted to watch movies in class.


I get Gandhi—having a harder time justifying Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It’s a good movie and all, but I don’t see how it’s particularly relevant in a classroom environment


We watched it across two days in block periods (two periods in one classroom for those unknown), and I must say it is a fantastic film. There was this girl that was not so sharp that asked how long it took to film since he ages throughout the movie. Mr. Lee was stunned. He just stared at her for a few seconds and changed the subject.


Even at that length, they had to be really efficient with the film to get the scope of his life. Fantastic movie


We started watching that in school. Watched it in 45 minute segments. We got two thirds into the movie, then our teacher ended up sick for a few weeks, and when he came back we had moved on to a different topic, so we never got to finish that movie. Still frustrated.


You mean the two hour feature length TV Movie Gandhi II?


Yeah the TIL wasn't even what the guy had in mind


ok so I'm doing this off of memory but the guy who killed Gandhi was a Hindu extremist who was mad that "Gandhi didn't hate Muslims and wants to live in peace with them" or something along those lines edit: yeah, I remembered properly > when Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist who objected to Gandhi's tolerance for the Muslims, fatally shot him. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gandhi-assassinated


Much more complex than that, here's literally just one thing from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi There are a couple more reasons in the same article Godse felt that the massacre and suffering caused during, and due to, the partition could have been avoided if Gandhi and the Indian government had acted to stop the killing of the minorities (Hindus and Sikhs) in West and East Pakistan. He stated Gandhi had not protested against these atrocities being suffered by Hindus in Pakistan and had instead resorted to fasts.[69] In his court deposition, Godse said, "I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred ... if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan.'"[70]


One of my issues with Gandhi was he took non violence too far, to the point where he was indirectly allowing more violence. Yes, civil unrest and peaceful protest works as long as there is pressure for the opposition to not massacre you. However, letting others kill you and your family like sheep is not noble or useful for anyone. Gandhi said “Hindus should be never angry against the Muslims even if the latter might take up their minds to undo even their existence”. Sometimes, hate needs to be fought with hate (killing nazis). Sometimes, freedom needs to be curbed to not impede on other’s freedom (anti-slavery).


I think something should be said about letting every person have their day in court... When nearing Berlin and discussing how to handle Hitler, [Churchill, Stalin, and FDR didn't initially agree on what to do](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/26/britain-execution-nuremberg-nazi-leaders). Churchill and Stalin, furious with Hitler, wanted to kill him by just shooting him in the temple and done. FDR thought we should appeal to our better and more humane nature and hold everyone we could on trial. At Yalta, FDR persuaded the other two to hold thoie Nazi leaders on trial, leading to the International Military Tribunal or Nuremberg Trials. The same was done to the Japanese in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The thing is, even if people have behaved cruelly or in a loathsome fashion, that shouldn't give those judging or executing them the justification to treat them in a like manner. Otherwise, that's vengeance. I don't agree with everything FDR did but this was a show that justice can be meted. Unfortunately these tribunals aren't always the most effective or perfect in dispensing justice but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Hate feeds into more hate. One of the most beautiful methods of dispensing justice was in [gacacas after the genocide in Rwanda.](https://youtu.be/LiDea-PNoyw) These gave people the opportunity to air their grievances. They didn't necessarily condemn people or let them use mob justice but people could actually express their pathos at what had happened.


That's something I didn't know about FDR. I guess I wouldn't have thought he would be ruthless, bit it's still nice to know for sure. Also, just as maybe a context for Churchill and Stalin. WW2 was fought a little close to home for them.


The whole concept of non violence being taken too far such that it paradoxically causes more violence is very neatly debated and explained in a 20 minute episode of Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Lmao.


To add to the discussion, Gandhi's assassin Godse is a controversial but not necessarily vilified figure. He was from Maharashtra like me (my school history teacher claimed to know exactly where the plan of the assassination was hatched and it was near to where I went to school, though it's probably bs) and there is a *famous* Marathi play called "Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy" (This is Nathuram Godse Speaking) where the character is given free rein to explain his motivations. The religious right also has a strange obsession with him. They will at once (eg, on the occasion of Gandhi's birthday) champion Gandhi while when asked about Godse say things like he did nothing wrong. So Gandhi may be the father of independent India, but his assassination is... complicated.


for those wondering: > Nobody had ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. But according to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation in force at that time, the Nobel Prizes could, under certain circumstances, be awarded posthumously. Thus it was possible to give Gandhi the prize. However, Gandhi did not belong to an organisation, he left no property behind and no will; who should receive the Prize money? The Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, August Schou, asked another of the Committee’s advisers, lawyer Ole Torleif Røed, to consider the practical consequences if the Committee were to award the Prize posthumously. Røed suggested a number of possible solutions for general application. Subsequently, he asked the Swedish prize-awarding institutions for their opinion. The answers were negative; posthumous awards, they thought, should not take place unless the laureate died after the Committee’s decision had been made. > On November 18, 1948, the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to make no award that year on the grounds that “there was no suitable living candidate”. Chairman Gunnar Jahn wrote in his diary: “To me it seems beyond doubt that a posthumous award would be contrary to the intentions of the testator.” According to the chairman, three of his colleagues agreed in the end, only Mr. Oftedal was in favour of a posthumous award to Gandhi.


Incase anyone is wondering about the main reason why posthumous Nobel awards are so carefully avoided is because they specifically did not want the award to become an exercise in looking for great historical figures. Like say, Isaac Newton, should he get a Nobel in mathematics? That's Not really the point of the award. This has caused problems when a person who contributed to a discovery and subsequently died before the official nomination. Most famously Rosalind Franklin did not receive credit for the discovery of DNA, so she is often left out of the conversation in general.


Why can’t they simply make a rule that the receiver can receive the award posthumously if they have died within the same year?


The award was actually given four years after the discovery. It's kind of famously slow some times. Einstein used the promise of one day getting a Nobel prize for relatively as a way to negotiate his divorce. She had to wait years with nothing.


A lot of times, especially with science, it's because the committee is waiting for experimental confirmation of the theory before they award it. Take Peter Higgs for example, him and his fellow scientists postulated the Higgs Boson in the 60s. They only recieved the Nobel Prize for it in 2013, _after_ the Higgs Boson was discovered at CERN. There was a full 49 year gap there between coming up with a theory and winning the Nobel Prize for it.


Interesting! So winning a Nobel Prize can be as much about survival as it is about brains.


That's just how science works. Theories don't mean anything if there's no physical proof or evidence to back it. That's why the Nobel Prize for Economics is so controversial because it's almost impossible to properly test theories.


There is no “Nobel prize in Economics”. It is Sweden’s Central Banks prize “in memory of Alfred Nobel”. They economists in 1968 basically attached a new prize to the strong Nobel trademark. (Alfred would most certainly not approve)


>So winning a Nobel Prize can be as much about survival as it is about brains. I've read a couple books that touch pretty heavily on the Nobel prize, and they often have a variation of this exact line. It's an often heard sentiment.


A lot of the Nobel prize is ‘political’. Why they waited until 2019 to award John B. Goodenough is beyond me. He was fundamental to the development of Li ion batteries from the beginning. The first commercial successful batteries came out in the early 90s, and since then they have taken over. They have revolutionised the way we live over and over for decades. And they waited until he was 97? Poor show.


They could; but a year is an arbitrary measurement and simply happening to die after the decision has already been made is concrete.


How about dying in the period from the previous nomination and the current award being given? That seems to be pretty clear, they would have won it were they alive and if they don't, then they are out of the running for future awards.


I imagine this could be partially resolved by allowing anyone who passed since the previous year's award was decided.


This was also a jeopardy question the other day!


what was the question?


It was the June 3rd episode. Double Jeopardy round, category was Nobel Prize Oddities, for $2000 the answer is: “1948 had no Peace Prize winner; this man who was nominated that year was assassinated & Nobels are rarely given posthumously”


Who was Gandhi?


Oh, Noooo, I'm so sorry. It's the MOOPS. The correct answer is, The MOOPS


Who is Gahndi


Ghandi? Never heard of him. Gandhi, otoh, I have heard of. Edit- now who's Gahndi?!


This was a Jeopardy clue last week. None of the contestants knew the answer.


Pretty sure they knew the answer. It was the question they struggled with.


Sick burn on the other nominees


I wish the Nobel Committee would forgo giving out the award more often. I mean Obama presided over how many drone strikes that killed civilians and got the peace prize? Not that I hate Obama or anything, but you know if your best candidate in 2009 has that much blood on their hands I feel that kind of devalues the whole premise of the award. I respect that they used to say "Ok no one qualifies, no peace prize this year"


They did this is with Kissinger as well, knowing that he was instrumental in Operation Menu during the Vietnam war. They also waited some time to give Carter his prize and ignored the events of East Timor, Angola, and Afghanistan.


Nobel's will specifically lists several criteria for winning the peace prize, including holding peace conferences and working for the reduction of standing armies. Candidates who did one of those things have a priority over candidates who didn't. It's kind of ironic that you can get the peace prize for holding a peace conference over a war you were involved in, but that's the rules Nobel set.




You’re implying that it wasn’t this at some point.


As are most things


> Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević. -- Anthony Bourdain,


More bombs dropped on Cambodia than any other country in the world. Horrendous shit the US did to Cambodia.


IIRC even Kissinger tried to return his prize lmao


“Satire died when Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize.” paraphrased from Tom Lehrer


Obama was nominated for the Nobel prize less than 2 weeks into his presidency. His drone strikes had nothing to do with the nomination. To be fair, I don't know what *had* to do with the nomination either.


I don't think Obama knew what it was for either


Obama said he didn't know why he got it.




We all know why he got it


So they just give it out for no reason then? Kind of defeats the meaning.


It's become politicized, some think the Nobel institute tries to curry favor with the awards when it can.


Being elected. Don't get me wrong, overall, I like Obama. He's certainly not without faults, but he was better than the guy before him and way better than the guy after him. But he got the prize for being elected.


IIRC one person on the committee has stated that they did it in a well-meaning but misguided attempt to influence his administration.


FWIW Obama got the Peace prize before that - hell, he got it before he was actually sworn in as president if I recall correctly, which is almost as much of a joke as if he got it after the presidency he had given the drone strikes and bombing in several countries. He literally got a Nobel Peace prize for running an effective presidential campaign, which is mostly marketing. It's just bizarre.


He was President for nine months, but yeah he was so new in office he really hadn't had time to earn it yet. Even he pretty much said so.


I feel like you could criticize most Nobel Prize winners for their other actions. Many of the Peace Prize winners got the prize because they signed/drafted a treaty ending a war (which they also had themselves participated in). The prize seems to be more of a political thing than an objective metric of who’s the most peace loving person or organization.


Isn't it amazing how the Nobel Prize Committee spun this piece of fiction to make themselves look good ? They refused to award Gandhi 4 times while he was alive because they didn't want to anger Britain, the most powerful country (of that era) and a strong ally of Norway and Sweden. After Gandhi was assassinated, even though he had been nominated that year, it all became irrelevant since the Nobel Committee had no precedent for a posthumous award. Not that it matters anyways - I think Gandhi's legacy is impactful as-is and doesn't need any validation. Edit : I see responses calling out Gandhi's various "sins" .... why does he "deserve" the prize .... there is a lot more nuance and complexity to this man (i.e he is not pure as driven snow) etc. OK - so lets first consider the nuance of a "Peace" prize named after the inventor of the first WMD in the world and funded from the fortune he made off that WMD. Close our eyes and mull on that for a moment. Now please open your eyes and see some more nuance in awarding the 1993 peace prize jointly to Nelson Mandela an iconic representative of the oppressed in South Africa, and FW De Klerk - a representative of Mandela's oppression. Here is some more nuance - this prize has been awarded jointly to the likes of Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin, Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, the list goes on ..... If this prize were for the Most Wholesome Human, then yes, neither Gandhi nor anyone else would ever be eligible for it. Instead, this prize is meant to recognize *SPECIFIC* acts of humanity that have made an impact in the world. Let's get one thing clear - no man deserves anything except Life, Liberty, and the freedom to pursue Happiness. Therefore, any global "Peace Prize" is merely the giver's desire to recognize some good in the world and be seen doing so - the underlying principle being fairness and consistency in the way you recognize good. Looking at Peace Prize winner lists from before Gandhi's death to now, do you think there was fairness an consistency in the criteria applied to Gandhi ? If the answer is "No", then please mull on that for a while. If you came up with "Yes" as your answer - then our little discussion has reached its end. Thank you. Peace .... out.


Nobel Committee always was a political puppet, especially the part that decides on "peace" awards.


This was a question on Jeopardy just last week




For those that keep asking and don’t know. Or can’t be bothered to use the interwebs. Yes he was killed \>At 5:17 pm on 30 January 1948, Gandhi was with his grandnieces in the garden of Birla House (now Gandhi Smriti), on his way to address a prayer meeting, when Nathuram Godse, a Hindu nationalist, fired three bullets into his chest from a pistol at close range. According to some accounts, Gandhi died instantly.\[184\]\[185\] In other accounts, such as one prepared by an eyewitness journalist, Gandhi was carried into the Birla House, into a bedroom. There he died about 30 minutes later as one of Gandhi's family members read verses from Hindu scriptures.\[186\]


Strange. They’ve awarded posthumous Nobel prizes at least 3 times in the past afaik: -Erik Axel Karlfeldt, literature, 1931 -Dag Hammarskjöld, peace, 1961 -Ralph Steinman, medicine, 2011 You’d think they would extend that same exception to a figure like Gandhi as well.


basiclly for Erik and Dag it was so individuals who died in the months between their nomination and the decision of the prize committee were originally eligible to receive the prize. Ralph Steinman is special as they (committee) simply did no know that he had died


IIRC Karlfeldt was a special case. His death should have prevented him winning, but he was on the committee that awards the literature prize (apparently he’d been nominated before and almost won until he turned down the prize because he thought it would be a bad look if he won), and after his death the rest of the people just went ahead with awarding him.


I actually respect this so much more. He actively denied something he deserved, just so aspersions couldn't be cast upon the process he put his blood and sweat into. And the second he dies, everyone around him raises a loving middle finger to him, and honors him anyway Everyone here's a pretty cool guy


Those are Nobel Prizes, not Nobel *Peace* Prizes, awarded by an entirely separate committee. Edit: Other than Hammarskjöld, though that was after Ghandi, so not really a precedent.


The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a different organization than the other Nobel Prizes.


At the risk of a lot of down votes,Gandhi had a VERY questionable outlook on race. He did lots of good, yes, but let’s not forget.


I came to say this. One of Gandhi’s main points of contention was his people being treated like -other race- and he considered them far beneath his people. And yes, IIRC, the other race was Africans. (But not African Americans because this wasn’t the American continent)


That was in 1890s, when he was a young lawyer in British South Africa when he argued for better treatment of Indians to white officer of Colonial government as Indians came from an ancient civilization. He had evolved a lot in 1890s itself, when during the Boer war he was running a ambulance corps for Africans in Boer war. As Mandela said, in so, “Gandhi must be forgiven those prejudices and judged in the context of the time and circumstances. We are looking here at the young Gandhi, still to become Mahatma, when he was without any human prejudice save that in favour of truth and justice.”


It's not a binary issue one way or the other. He was born in privilege and had views that were questionable. Unlike the vast majority of people in a position like that, he actually grew beyond those views and did something to enact change and help people. That's part of why he was so respected, he gave up a life of privilege to help people oppressed by it.


I seem to remember that he later apologized for such beliefs upon coming back to India. Nevertheless, one shouldn't forget that the biggest leaders have flaws. Gandhi was a bit of a primitivist and had "questionable" views on caste (varna).


He had a questionable outlook when he was young. As he grew older, his views changed. In fact, in the years he was active in India, and when he got the title of mahatma, his opinions had changed. And he himself addresses his racism in his own autobiography. you do the man a disservice by making it seem like he was racist through and through.


The guy who slept naked with teenagers?


With his own granddaughters to "test his chastity" What the fuck


That's not much of a test for most people...


This story, like many tall tales, gets more exaggerated each time it's told. Here's some actual facts from [these two](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7i3h4m/is_this_vice_article_about_gandhi_accurate/dqw108s/) previous [answers](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2zvgh4/per_russell_brands_standup_did_gandhi_let_his/) AskHistorians answers on Gandhi by /u/CogitoErgoDoom and /u/barath_s, respectively. TL;DR: These claims are often exaggerated. He did sleep in the same bed as a younger female relative at least once, but both were clothed and the door to the room was open. EDIT: Another fact worth mentioning - there were no children involved. From reliable sources, the best I can tell is that there were at most three women involved - two of his grandnieces and his personal doctor. His grandnieces were in their late teens - 18 and 19, his doctor in her 30s. Is this weird and creepy? Definitely. Does it fall within his larger worldview of brahmacharya and a lifetime of experiments with morality? Yes. It bugs me to see lies spreading as though they were truth. Gandhi being a weird guy and a morally flawed person doesn't make him a pedophile, and this story's usual exaggerated form is simply wrong.




TIL Gandhi was assassinated