Zcom_simple

Nobel Speech? C-




Change Text Size a- | A+


If, a week ago, one of my Intro to Peace Studies students had handed in the very speech given by President Obama in Norway, I would have given that student a C-.

 

What? He is charismatic, eloquent, measured, brilliant—how can a peace studies professor be so cynical, so arrogant, so hyperbolic?

 

Because.

 

Because he cited Gandhi as an influence then attempted to repudiate Gandhi. He cited Dr. King as not merely an influence but as sine qua non to his, Obama’s, very presidency—and then called King’s methods unworkable for a head of state.

 

Because he said, “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.” Any good student in my field would be on Full Factoid Alert upon hearing that. In fact, where nonviolence was attempted against the Nazis it succeeded. Ask the Norwegian teachers, the brave exemplars of nonviolent resistance to Quisling’s Hitlerism. Some of those teachers perished in Arctic prison camps rather than teach Nazism and Vidkun Quisling eventually blamed those teachers for his failure to change Norwegian culture. Ask the non-Jewish wives of Jewish men whose husbands were rounded up into a prison on the Rosenstrausse, just four blocks from SS headquarters, and whose brave nonviolent siege upon that building led to negotiations with the Nazis and the release of their husbands. Ask the Jewish descendants of the 7,000+ Danish Jews who were saved from the round-up order by non-Jewish Danes, or ask the great-granddaughters of the Jews saved in Le Chambon, France, at great risk to the local descendants of the Huguenots who sheltered them. Yes, these were sporadic and admittedly counterintuitive methods—organized nonviolence versus Nazis—but Peace Studies scholarship has given us a glimmer of the possibilities of such an apparently quixotic strategy and no one who is getting solid advice from anyone in that field would make such a categorical misstatement as Obama did.  Certainly I would expect my Intro to Nonviolence students to make a different argument by midterms at the latest.

 

Because President Obama said, “I believe that all nations, strong and weak alike, must adhere to standards that govern the use of force.” My students know that civilians are legally protected and yet President Obama has presided over unmanned drone missile attacks that have killed an estimated 800 civilians, including children. These attacks not only elicit scorn and derision from indigenous Taliban forces as evidence that Obama’s military is too cowardly to come meet them, they are illegal and are used as recruiting points for both the Taliban insurgency and al-Qa’ida terrorists. Peace Studies students know all this, and much more, about the fallacies, hypocritical stances and reversals of fact proffered in Oslo by our president.

 

I wish he would find himself at least one advisor from the world of peace—not the imposed peace of empire but the peace of dialog and negotiation, nonviolent force and mass action. Then, if he took some peace studies courses, he would probably be an A student. His pre-test comes back with a C-, however. Too bad the entire world had to hear it and really too bad that his ignorance is going to cost so much blood and treasure of the US, Afghanistan, NATO countries and Pakistan.

 

 

Tom H. Hastings teaches various peace and nonviolence courses at Portland State University and directs PeaceVoice, a program of the Oregon Peace Institute. He lives in Whitefeather Peace House in north Portland.

583154

C- ?

By Donahue, Paul at Dec 14, 2009 10:20 AM

You would have given him a C-?

Grade Inflation must be a problem a Portland State...

Reply this comment


Person

Not sure if it's ignorance.

By Eames, Jack at Dec 13, 2009 08:09 AM

I agree with the content of your post here, but not the conclusion. I don't think Obama is ignorant, it's more likely that he's just lying. I'm sure he knows many of the points he made were riddled with logical flaws and contradictions, as well as much of it resting on assumptions that are empirically or historically false.

He certainly knows something of the history of Afghanistan and I'm sure he knows more than most about 9/11 and Al Qaeda and how much Afghanistan has to do with any of it.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Not sure if it's ignorance.

By Nguyen-tri, David at Dec 16, 2009 14:18 PM

I'm not sure if it's out and out deceit either, to be honest. People in general tend to have ideological blindspots that helps reduce the discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance (i.e., what happens when one notices that two ideas that they hold dear are contradictory and at odds with one another). There is more than one way to deal with it. One is to abandon one of the two ideas. Another is to rationalize the conflict away, which seems ot be the way Obama is going about it. Not that I know the guy, but I think Obama genuinely thinks he's a good person and maybe even genuinely believes all the things about the people he calls his heroes. To say that a head of state can't run a country like that is, I think, a rationalization for his failure to live up to people's expectations. That doesn't excuse anything he's done or his failure to live up to his word, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it outright deceit. So the thinking may go something like this: I'm about to take a course of action that'll directly harm people, but I'm a good person. One way to reduce the conflict is to tell oneself that what one is doing isn't really bad at all, that you're actually doing these people a favour. Of course, it's still highly unethical, but it's common. W. K. Clifford wrote something pretty insightful about it, I find:

"A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not well built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those families. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it"

http://myweb.lmu.edu/tshanahan/Clifford-Ethics_of_Belief.html

Reply this comment

Loading_border