With respect, this is a most odd piece. It seems to suggest that Obama should be given the Peace prize (which has a specific remit), essentially for being black and African. No. What history has taught us is that simply having black and African leaders is not a blow against the Middle Passage, or colonialism, or exploitation. In many ways, that is a white fantasy: that a black man ‘allowed’ to come on board spells the end of past violence. (The main point of Fanon’s Pitfalls of National Consciousness). This is how the Tories in Britain manage–brandishing their Asian or black members. ‘They like him in Africa’–that’s a good reason to give him the PEACE prize? Mr Congeniality, maybe, but not the peace prize.

The piece is also deeply contradictory on pragmatism and America-centrism. It suggests that Obama can’t do anything singlehandedly (itself a pragmatic argument) and one must be realistic about the complex terrain. Fine. But then what are we rewarding him for? For being American, black and not Bush? What could be more America-centric than giving every other American diplomat or president the Peace Prize.

What really disturbs me about this piece is its condescenscion masquerading as serious political analysis about race and colonialism?