Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News

2014 Nobel Peace Prize Awarded To Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzay 144

An anonymous reader writes: This year's Nobel Peace Prize has been given to Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzay for fighting to protect the rights of children and further their education. Yousafzay, at the age of 17, is the youngest recipient of the Peace Prize. Born and raised in Pakistan, she actively campaigned for girls' rights to education. In 2012, the Taliban shot her in the head, but she survived and continued her struggle. Satyarthi, a 60-year-old from India, has led many peaceful protests to fight against child slavery and illiteracy. "Satyarthi estimates that 60 million children in India, or 6 percent of the population, are forced into work. This, he believes, has nothing to do with parental poverty, illiteracy or ignorance. Above all, children are enslaved because employers benefit by getting their labour for free or for a pittance." This year's Nobel Peace Prize awards are also notable for bringing together an Indian and a Pakistani while their respective governments sustain a military conflict along a stretch of border between their countries.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2014 Nobel Peace Prize Awarded To Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzay

Comments Filter:
  • by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Friday October 10, 2014 @10:18AM (#48110989) Homepage Journal

    But these are both great people who went through hell to great things. They could've awarded the peace prize to Hitler himself, and I'd still be thinking these awards are incredibly appropriate.

    I wish I could've achieved as much as Malala when I was 17, and I can still aspire to achieve what Kailash did by the same I'm 60.

    Fuck anti-education assholes, and fuck slavery.

  • Pakistan and India have been hostile since they first were separated from each other, but they're not so different!! Surely this gesture will make them realize this and they'll have no choice but to bury the hatchet, that's just how human psychology works.

    • Re:Get it (Score:4, Informative)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Friday October 10, 2014 @10:59AM (#48111453)

      Pakistan and India have been hostile since they first were separated from each other, but they're not so different!!

      The people of Pakistan and the people of India have been hostile toward each other much longer than that. Of course, they weren't "people of Pakistan and India" before the end of British rule of what is now India and Pakistan.

      About the only period they weren't hostile was during the Raj, when the British tried to prevent that sort of thing.

      Note that during the post-British period, when they were split into two countries, the Hindus living in what is now Pakistan were attacked by their Muslim neighbors and driven out of the country.

      Likewise, during the same period, the Muslims living in what is now India were attacked by their Hindu neighbors. This reached the point that trainloads of Muslims fleeing to Pakistan were stopped by the Indian Army and machinegunned before being allowed to continue into Pakistan.

      Surely this gesture will make them realize this and they'll have no choice but to bury the hatchet, that's just how human psychology works.

      Bury the hatchet in each other's head, yes.

      The way you mean it, no.

      And do you really know so little of human psychology?

      • Re: Get it (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 10, 2014 @11:30AM (#48111783)

        "People of Pakistan and people of India have long been hostile?" Wrong. "Was the only time they were not hostile was during the Raj?". Utterly wrong again, rather the opposite. People of areas now comprising India and Pakistan were never so hostile except since Raj. As a mattef of fact these hostilities were sown due to Raj's divide-and-rule approach.

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          There's no moral equivalence here.

          I think it was Mohammad's rampaging armies and forcible conversions and associated brutality that created the initial bitterness between people of the same genetic stock. Today, the divide between those that converted and those that didn't still remains. Unfortunately, the brutality from those rampaging armies is still echoing today, with the converted being well indoctrinated. I mean, how many terrorist attacks do Hindus carry out in Pakistan, versus terrorist attacks t

          • Re: Get it (Score:1, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Do you have any actual historical facts to back up any of that bigoted opinion of yours or is it just what you read on some redneck blog?

        • In 1932 British regime recommended Independent States for SC/ST/Dalit/Untouchable/Muslim/Sikh/Christian/Parsi/Buddhist/Jain communities in 2nd Round Table Conference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Hindus were 26% of current pakistan before independence, now less than 2%. Muslims were 8% in 1947 in current India, now 16%. That tells a whole lot.

    • by nbauman ( 624611 )

      Pakistan and India have been hostile since they first were separated from each other, but they're not so different!! Surely this gesture will make them realize this and they'll have no choice but to bury the hatchet, that's just how human psychology works.

      Actually there is good scientific evidence for that.

      http://www.sciencemag.org/site... [sciencemag.org]
      Human Conflict
      Why We Fight—In this special issue we consider the deep evolutionary roots of violent confrontation. We trace the trajectory of violence and war throughout history, exploring racism, ethnic conflicts, the rise of terrorism, and the possible future of armed conflicts.

      tldr; Human conflict and mass exterminations are constants that have been going on for as long as we have historical or anthropological records. Reconciliation is just as much of a constant. Human populations fight and make peace.

  • Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) <richardprice@gmaiTWAINl.com minus author> on Friday October 10, 2014 @10:24AM (#48111043)

    Malala Yousafzay campaigns for womens and girls rights, and in the UK she gets sent to a private, segregated all girls school... I always found that slightly ironic.

    • Wait is that UK "private" or US "private"? They're almost opposite in meaning.

      • Not really - a private school in the UK is also referred to as a public school and is funded in whole or in part by tuition fees, as opposed to a state school which is free to attend and paid by the government.

      • by PhilHibbs ( 4537 )

        I know that "public" has opposite meanings in the UK and US, but I didn't know "private" did. Her school is independent, as in not state-owned. It's a charity. And I don't see why it's ironic. "Girls should have the right to get an education" and "Education should only be provided by the state" are two entirely orthogonal statements.

    • Re:Irony (Score:5, Informative)

      by Code Herder ( 937988 ) on Friday October 10, 2014 @10:50AM (#48111359)
      Her campaign is for girls' rights to education, pretty sure she doesn't care if people go to coed schools or separate and whether it's private or public.

      Plus I'm just taking a guess but there's probably security issues that are easier to handle in a private all girl school. She was shot point blank 3 times for her views after all, I wouldn't exactly feel 100% safe even if I was in the UK.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PhilHibbs ( 4537 )

      Not all segregation is sexist. Women-only gyms, all-girls schools, female sports teams and competitions, none of these are ghettoes that women are forced into.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Not all segregation is sexist. Women-only gyms, all-girls schools, female sports teams and competitions, none of these are ghettoes that women are forced into.

        hm... Oh, I get it. If you are white and male you cannot be the victim of sexism or racism "Women-only gyms" aren't sexist against men, ladies' night isn't sexist against men (particularly gay men), all-girl schools aren't sexist against boys(depending on the reasoning behind the segregation). It's only sexist if it is an all men college, etc.

        • I'd be wary of the term "sexist against". The purpose of ladies' night is to increase the pool of women that straight men can hit on by providing women an incentive. Somewhat more sinisterly, those women are able to consume more alcohol so their judgement is also likely to be more impaired on average.

          So it's not really against men or against women, it's more complicated than that.

          It is sexist though, and it's not actually universally legal.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by _xeno_ ( 155264 )

      What's really ironic is Harvard awarding Malala Yousafzai "Humanitarian of the Year" [harvard.edu] for her efforts in promoting education for women.

      Harvard started accepting women in 1999. Malala would have been two at the time.

      • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        Sure, if you ignore the whole Radcliffe College (started in 1879) thing.

        • by _xeno_ ( 155264 )

          Radcliffe didn't become a full part of Harvard until 1977. Only then could you argue that a Harvard degree and a Radcliffe degree were effectively the same thing.

          Sure, at least Harvard was educating women, but there was still a definitive dividing line between "education for women" and "education for men" at Harvard through 1977 at the earliest.

          Which still makes them honoring Malala Yousafzai somewhat ironic considering how long it took them to get around to providing women the same education they provided

    • by fidget ( 46220 )

      You are confusing the location of her education with her campaign for "the freedom of women and girls to be educated".
      Ascribing motive to the location of her education is probably premature.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 10, 2014 @10:28AM (#48111083)

    There's some kind of myth that is sought to be promulgated by certain people that the Nobel committee is politically independent. That is completely wrong. The entire commitee is put together by votes in the parliament, and former and high profile politicians are heavily involved. So consider basically the committee's choices the result of the preferences of political appointees.

    The current head of the commitee, Thorbjørn Jagland, is a former head politician of the Labour party. He was the one who gave the prize to Barack Obama. Of course, the commitee does have five people in it - but they are all political appointees, and the president has a double vote.

    He has been severely and repeatedly criticised over many years, from high profile people, for completely ignoring Alfred Nobel's will. For example, here: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/nobels-fredspris/nobel-forfatter-jagland-burde-gaatt-av-for-lenge-siden/a/10062076/ - headline "Jagland should have resigned a long time ago", criticism from the author of the book "Nobel's Will". Article about the author here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrik_Heffermehl .

    Nobel's will states that the prize should go to whomever works to reduce standing armies and arrange peace conferences - it should go to efforts to reduce conventional wars.

    The new conservative government has indicated that they are going to remove Jagland. Jagland has presented a conspiracy theory that this is because they are trying to please China. But that's probably not going to float, so the streak of madness and Labour party preference is going to end soon.

    • It's hard to divorce politics from the notion of peace. There are people whose political beliefs go as far as the notion that going to war promotes peace. The best you can do is try to ensure there is non-partial input.

      • by s.petry ( 762400 )

        It's hard to divorce politics from the notion of peace. There are people whose political beliefs go as far as the notion that going to war promotes peace. The best you can do is try to ensure there is non-partial input.

        I don't believe you are correct trying to divorce peace from politics. I don't want to hijack the conversation and turn the thread into a D vs. R debate so won't introduce blame here. That said, what if Obama had been able live up to his campaign promises and rhetoric? Personally I would have no problem with him winning the Peace prize if that was the situation.

        Barack Obama did not receive the prize based on his actions or accomplishments, he receive the prize for what he put on a piece of paper. That i

    • And obviously the Taliban was not consulted on this award.

      Actually your post is incredibly self-contradictory. You're miffed about Obama receiving the award, yet you think it should go to people who reduce warfare. Obama has been criticized constantly by the American right for not going to war often enough and hard enough. Your knee-jerk response will certainly be to list instances where Obama has used military force. But tally up the pile of corpses from this Presidency vs. the previous, and you will

      • By the way, I do think Yousafzay is more deserving of the prize than Obama was - not so much for getting shot, but for subsequently taking up the cause despite being shot, and at the risk of being shot again. And although you contend that the political right is not fairly represented in awarding the Nobel Prize, I question whether you will find any of them (short of the aforementioned Taliban) to come out publicly against her receiving the prize?
        • ...not so much for getting shot, but for subsequently taking up the cause despite being shot, and at the risk of being shot again.

          Some people seem to have the odd notion that Malala was a victim of random violence. The truth of the matter is that it was anything but random.

          She did *not* take up the cause "because of" being shot or even "in spite of" it. Quite the opposite. She was marked for death by the Taliban precisely because (a) she was *already* an advocate for education for girls and (b) she was *already* working to expose the Taliban's horrid treatment of girls and women to the outside world. She is still so marked by them, a

    • by Jawnn ( 445279 )
      So, because you disagree with one man's politics, The Nobel Peace Prize is shit. Got it. Nice reasoning there.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Where's Obama's second Peace Prize?

  • Is that allowed? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Friday October 10, 2014 @10:38AM (#48111221) Journal
    "In 2012, the Taliban shot her in the head, but she survived and continued her struggle."

    That ladies and gentlemen is what we call a zombie. Can a zombie win the nobel prize? Apparently so. I for one welcome our new teenage zombie overlords.
  • I approve of this award. These are an invasion of women's rights. These are kids in need of protection. These are people who need SJWs facetweeting for them from coffee shops. Mark and Frank giggling about a 'dongle' across the hall is a first world problem.
    • And I thought John Kerry was a shoo-in for his Israeli Apartheid comments...
      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Well making women sit at the back of the bus is a kind of Apartheid. Of course Americans usually are in favour of Apartheid, you just have to look at their friends such as the Saudis, Kuwait and various other middle eastern countries, even going so far as to bomb and invade one of the few countries where women had close to equal rights and making sure of a huge mess, but it did make sure women were back in their place, no more education or wearing skirts

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The Nobel "Peace" prize is such a farce. First we have warmonger Obama. Then we have Snowden completely ignored.

  • I was really hoping Obama would get it again. You know, for failing to do anything or engage in combat with ISIS for months. Just letting the enemy take over and burying your head in the sand is what those anti-war protestors want after all.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    What a damned shame that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama has rendered it a joke for the rest of time. Used to be something prestigious and precious, an important statement...but then, they jumped the shark and now it's just a punchline.

  • Finally - a Peace Prize goes to someone who actually earned it!

  • Err.. It's great reading how everyone is praising her and saying she deserves every bit of it. Frankly I don't take Nobel Award seriously anymore, I mean Obama has one, that didn't stop the drone attacks against Pakistan..right? Well, now lets talk about education. In Pakistan we do have an education system which to be honest isn't that great, boys and girls both have to chance to get education, however due to backward nature of some regions they can't really study. They're told to study Quran btw and the

Today's scientific question is: What in the world is electricity? And where does it go after it leaves the toaster? -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

Working...