Re: The Top 100 News Events in U.S. History, 20th Century
James Neibaur
r...@att.net wrote on 10/2/04 6:16 AM:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> 'The World Almanac E-Newsletter' (e-mail)
>
> The Top 100 News Stories in U.S. History in the 20th Century according to
> historians.
(snip)
Interesting, but I was surprised to not find the debut of talking pictures,
or Elvis Presley (the Beatles were there).
JN
Sanford Manley
> 'The World Almanac E-Newsletter' (e-mail)
>
>
> 11. Alexander Fleming discovers the first antibiotic, penicillin. 1928
Sir Alexander Fleming was an Englishman, working in London when
he discovered penicillin. How thus becomes a top event in US history
is beyond me other than we benefit.
There are large number of other events on this list that are comparable.
--
Sanford M. Manley
"The first thing I do after opening a bar of Ivory soap is to
scrape off the .0056 part that's impure. I mean, who wants
to wash themselves with that crap?" - Paul Paternoster
I am The Ansaman! http://www.ansaman.com
Angry Fetus Comics!! http://www.ansaman.com/angryfetuslatest.html
Bob Flaminio
> Interesting, but I was surprised to not find the debut of talking
> pictures, or Elvis Presley (the Beatles were there).
I agree -- if there was no Elvis (from the waist up, at least), there
would have been no Beatles. Elvis' appearance on TV was more important,
and besides, Elvis was an American (this was supposed to be "US"
history, after all).
--
Bob
R H Draney
>
>13. U.S.S.R dissolves, Mikhail Gorbachev resigns: Boris Yeltsin takes over.
> 1991
>
>16. Russian revolution ends: Communists take over. 1917 [Oct., after the
>*earlier* 1917 revolution frees Russia from the Czar]
>
>27. Berlin Wall falls as East Germany lifts travel restrictions. 1989
>
>29. Mao Tse-tung establishes Peoples Republic of China: Nationalists flee to
>Formosa (Taiwan). 1949
>
>45. Israel achieves statehood. 1948 [May 14]
>
>49. Apartheid ends in South Africa: law to treat races equally. 1993
>
>60. Yuri Gagarin becomes first man in space. 1961 [Apr. 12]
>
>70. Communists build wall to divide East and West Berlin. 1961 [Aug.]
>
>71. Mohandas Gandhi begins leading nonviolent reform movement in India. 1920
>
>75. Joseph Stalin begins forced modernization of the Soviet Union: resulting
>famines claim 25 million. 1928
>
>77. Mikhail Gorbachev becomes Soviet Premier: begins era of "Glasnost." 1985
>
>79. Scientists clone sheep, dubbed Dolly, in Scotland. 1997
>
>86. Sigmund Freud publishes "The Interpretation of Dreams." 1900
>
>87. China begins "Great Leap Forward" modernization program: estimated 20
>million die in ensuing famine. 1958
>
>93. Hitler launches "Kristallnacht," ordering Nazis to commit acts of
>violence against German Jews. 1938 [Nov. 9]
>
>94. Winston Churchill designated Prime Minister of Great Britain. 1940
>
>95. Louise Brown, first "test-tube baby," born healthy. 1978
>
>98. Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion results in deaths of an estimated
>7,000. 1986
In what sense are any of the above "Events in U.S. History"?...r
Harry Krause
Let me guess...not being an isolationist, I believe that events that
take place in other parts of the world sometimes have a significant
impact on the United States.
Unless you think events such as "Yuri Gagarin becomes first man in
space" had no impact on US history...
--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.
What, me worry?
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, James Neibaur <jnei...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> Interesting, but I was surprised to not find the debut of talking
> pictures, or Elvis Presley (the Beatles were there).
The Beatles' debut was a huge news story. Though the events
themselves proved to be landscape-changing, I don't think you can say
the same about "The Jazz Singer" or Elvis. 'Course, you can say the
same thing about a few events that did make the list -- e.g., the
demonstration of television at the 1939 World's Fair, or the approval
of the birth control pill.
And I would have ranked the fall of the Berlin Wall a lot higher.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyfler/Rosner
"J.D. Baldwin" <INVALID...@example.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:cjmioj$abm$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> In the previous article, James Neibaur
> <jnei...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>> Interesting, but I was surprised to not find the debut of
>> talking
>> pictures, or Elvis Presley (the Beatles were there).
>
> The Beatles' debut was a huge news story. Though the
> events
> themselves proved to be landscape-changing, I don't think
> you can say
> the same about "The Jazz Singer" or Elvis. 'Course, you
> can say the
> same thing about a few events that did make the list --
> e.g., the
> demonstration of television at the 1939 World's Fair, or
> the approval
> of the birth control pill.
>
> And I would have ranked the fall of the Berlin Wall a lot
> higher.
And Betty Friedan a lot lower. I understand why it was
included, to have a marker of some sort. But I think it's
very simplistic to say that this one book ushered in the
women's movement in 1963.
James Neibaur
wrote on 10/2/04 9:21 AM:
> I agree -- if there was no Elvis (from the waist up, at least), there
> would have been no Beatles. Elvis' appearance on TV was more important,
> and besides, Elvis was an American (this was supposed to be "US"
> history, after all).
Elvis was a necessary pioneer, and it is he (and others) who begat The
Beatles. But the American/British thing works for me because the event
signalled the Beatles coming to America, thus being a part of US history.
Elvis should have been there too, though.
JN
James Neibaur
INVALID...@example.com.invalid wrote on 10/2/04 10:50 AM:
> The Beatles' debut was a huge news story. Though the events
> themselves proved to be landscape-changing, I don't think you can say
> the same about "The Jazz Singer" or Elvis.
Talking pictures and Elvis were pop culture significant events, though, on
par with The Beatles for certain. I really think they all should have been
listed. The Beatles may have caused more immediate attention (although I'm
not sure), but there impact, while enormous, was no greater than Elvis or
talkies.
JN
James Neibaur
at r...@att.net wrote on 10/2/04 11:06 AM:
> Women had *their* movement when they won the vote [listed] in 1920.
Don't let 'em fool ya, Roy, the women's movement began when Mabel Normand
hit Chester Conklin with the movies' first pie in the face in 1914.
JN
ARS
You missed:
7. Horrors of Nazi Holocaust, concentration camps exposed. 1945
ARS
Bob Feigel
<manl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Rob Petrie said:
>> 'The World Almanac E-Newsletter' (e-mail)
>>
>> Volume 4, Number 10 - October 2004
>>
>> 11. Alexander Fleming discovers the first antibiotic, penicillin. 1928
>
>Sir Alexander Fleming was an Englishman, working in London when
>he discovered penicillin. How thus becomes a top event in US history
>is beyond me other than we benefit.
>
>There are large number of other events on this list that are comparable.
I think you'll find that Sir Alexander Fleming was a Scotsman and that
few, if any, Scotsmen like to be refered to as an 'Englishman'. b
"When weaving nets, all threads count." - Charlie Chan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
No Such User
Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was news; splitting atoms under the stands
at Stagg Field was not news.
Look at some of these non-news events:
In article <46w7d.797$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Rob Petrie wrote:
>
>'The World Almanac E-Newsletter' (e-mail)
>
>The Top 100 News Stories in U.S. History in the 20th Century according to
>historians.
>
>1. United States drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki: Japan surrenders
>to end World War II. 1945 [Aug. 6, 9]
>
This is actually two separate events, separated by some weeks.
>4. Wilbur and Orville Wright fly the first powered airplane. 1903 [Dec. 17]
>
A significant event, to be sure, but it was not news. It was kept secret
in order to preserve the Wrights' patent rights over their invention.
>17. Henry Ford organizes the first major U.S. assembly line to produce Model
>T cars. 1913
>
Did this make any newspapers outside Detroit? I doubt it.
>19. Albert Einstein presents special theory of relativity: general
>relativity theory to follow. 1905
>
This would be "news" only to a small circle of physicists. Its significance
was realized slowly over time. Not news.
>25. Deadly AIDS disease identified. 1981
>
This is rated much too highly. The Surgeon General's "Smoking Causes
Cancer" announcement (#100) should be swapped with this.
>32. World Wide Web revolutionizes the Internet. 1989
>
Another non-news event. This invention was hardly news at the time.
>36. "Unsinkable" Titanic, largest man-made structure, sinks. 1912
> [Apr. 14-15]
>
Bigger than the Great Wall of China? Who knew?
>40. First regular radio broadcasts begin in America. 1909
>
Probably unnoticed by most of the people in the area where the broadcast
could be received.
>42. 'ENIAC' becomes world's first computer. 1946
>
Another historic milestone that is significant only in retrospect.
Not news.
>46. Plastic invented: revolutionizes products, packaging. 1909
>
The mass production of nylon, perhaps. Not this. It didn't become
well known for decades.
>48. Atomic bomb tested in New Mexico. 1945 [Jul. 16]
>
Not news; in fact, it was a well-suppressed secret.
>51. American scientists patent the computer chip. 1959
>
Like most mechanical inventions, not news.
>53. White House sex scandal leads to impeachment of President William
>Jefferson Clinton. 1998
>
>55. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ROBERT F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATED in CALIFORNIA.
>1968 [Jun. 4-5] [my emph.]
>
Bill's BJ outranks Bobby's murder? Who came up with this crap?
Self-indulgent yuppies?
>61. First jet airplane takes flight. 1939
>
Another invention that was little noticed. Compare that to the media
frenzy accompanying the breaking of the sound barrier (not on this list).
>64. Manhattan Project begins secret work on atomic bomb: Fermi triggers
>first atomic chain reaction. 1942
>
This even has the word "secret" in it. NOT NEWS.
>71. Mohandas Gandhi begins leading nonviolent reform movement in India. 1920
>
Probably unnoticed. Gandhi's assassination, however, was news. Why isn't
it on the list?
>75. Joseph Stalin begins forced modernization of the Soviet Union: resulting
>famines claim 25 million. 1928
>
And, thanks to fellow-travelers like Duranty and the New York Times, this
was kept out of the news.
>76. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt beats incumbent President Herbert Hoover.
> 1932
>
If you're including this, you would have to include just about every change
of President in this century, especially the elections of Lyndon Johnson or
Ronald Reagan.
>78. Max Planck proposes quantum theory of energy. 1900
>
Unnoticed outside scientific circles.
>86. Sigmund Freud publishes "The Interpretation of Dreams." 1900
>
See #78.
>92. Pathfinder lands on Mars, sending back astonishing photos. 1997
>
Not as big news as the Mariner fly-by of Mars that overturned all the
prevailing theories about conditions on that planet.
>97. Bill Gates and Paul Allen start Microsoft Corp. to develop software for
>Altair computer. 1975
>
As if anyone outside a small circle paid any attention to this.
>
James Neibaur
r...@att.net wrote on 10/2/04 2:49 PM:
> [Mabel Normand had *nothing* on the science and laugh-getting ability of
> pie throwing--Moe beats her easily.]
Mabel Normand was the first female comedienne to write and direct her own
pictures. She is, perhaps, the first female writer and director in movie
history (I am not 100% sure, but since she started directing 1914 or so, she
certainly must be one of the first). She is a pioneer, an innovator, not
someone who merely performed already established gags. There is a reason
why she has often been referred to as the female Chaplin. Her significance
is quite enormous. Not many know here anymore (she died in 1930 and had a
rough personal life), but that does not diminish her tremendous contribution
to cinema.
I like Moe too, but still realize the Stooges belong exactly where comedy
history has placed them. And there is nothing wrong with that, nor does it
make them less funny.
JN
Corby Gilmore
Sadly, the #1 News Story for the 21st century has already occurred, only 21
months into the century. Time may prove me wrong, but I cant possibly
imagine anything overshadowing 9/11.
--
Corby Gilmore
co...@ncf.ca
James Neibaur
ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA wrote on 10/2/04 8:43 PM:
> Time may prove me wrong, but I cant possibly
> imagine anything overshadowing 9/11.
And we certainly hope nothing worse happens
JN
Mpoconnor7
>>T cars. 1913
>>
>Did this make any newspapers outside Detroit? I doubt it.
I'm sure that when Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft in 1975, which
was further down on the list, that it didn't appear in any newspapers at the
time. And when the WWW was established in 1989, I don't remember it being
mentioned on CNN or in USA Today. Some historical events are not significant
at the time they happen, but over time they acquire importance and stature.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"I actually thought about voting for John Kerry before I decided to vote
against him."
Bob Champ
> A lot of these, while of historical significance, are hardly "news events."
> Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was news; splitting atoms under the stands
> at Stagg Field was not news.
NSU, I think you've blown this list right out of the water. If the
topic had been Top Historical Events in U.S. History, 20th Century, it
would have made more sense.
Bob Champ
Brad Ferguson
<ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> Sadly, the #1 News Story for the 21st century has already occurred, only 21
> months into the century. Time may prove me wrong, but I cant possibly
> imagine anything overshadowing 9/11.
I can. Easily. One warhead would do it.
I hope it doesn't happen, but I think it's inevitable.
Bob Martin
>>42. 'ENIAC' becomes world's first computer. 1946
>>
>
> Another historic milestone that is significant only in retrospect.
> Not news.
Also subsequently proven to be false.
First computer was at Bletchley Park, but was kept secret for 30 years.
Terrymelin
>>
>This is rated much too highly. The Surgeon General's "Smoking Causes
>Cancer" announcement (#100) should be swapped with this.
>
I'd like to see who put the list together since this is such a politically
correct choice.
Terry Ellsworth
Harry Krause
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>
> See: http://www.badnunick.org/plans_homelandsecurity.php
Badnudnick has no experience relevant to national security or anything
else.
Corby Gilmore
Corby Gilmore (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> "Rob Petrie" (r...@att.net) writes:
>>
>>>>> The Top 100 News Stories in U.S. History in the 20th Century according
>>>>> to
>>>>> historians.
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>
>>> 21
>>> months into the century.
>>
>> Dec. 31, 2000 was the last day of the 20th Century.
>> Jan. 1, 2001 was the first day of the 21st Century.
>
>
> Except that you will find two events from 1900 on the list from the 20th
> century that was posted.
78. Max Planck proposes quantum theory of energy. (1900)
86. Freud publishes "The interpretation of Dreams" (1900)
--
Corby Gilmore
co...@ncf.ca
Harry Krause
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> news:2saot6F...@uni-berlin.de...
>> Rob Petrie wrote:
>
>>> See: http://www.badnunick.org/plans_homelandsecurity.php
>
>
> You don't have an honest bone in your 206-boned body
> [incl. your head]
>
>
>
>> Badnudnick has no experience relevant to national security or anything
>> else.
Your dog won't hunt, Roy. And you probably can't, either.
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> In what sense are any of the above "Events in U.S. History"?...r
>
>take place in other parts of the world sometimes have a significant
>impact on the United States.
In that case, why is it necessary to qualify the heading of the list as
containing events in "U.S." history, when any event anywhere can potentially
affect someone from or in the U.S?...would you like a list of large
water-containing seas and lakes?...r
Terrymelin
>pictures. She is, perhaps, the first female writer and director in movie
>history
Like so many of that era, she is sadly forgotten today. In their day the silent
stars were bigger -- in the public's imagination -- than anyone in Hollywood
who came after them. Today, we don't watch their films and we've forgetten
their names and don't recognize their faces. It's really a shame. It's history
that we just ignore.
I remember a funny -- though smart -- quote from Lillian Gish:
"When we went to talkies we lost 90% of audience -- the audience that doesn't
speak English."
Terry Ellsworth
James Neibaur
terry...@aol.com wrote on 10/3/04 4:00 PM:
> Like so many of that era, she is sadly forgotten today. In their day the
> silent
> stars were bigger -- in the public's imagination -- than anyone in Hollywood
> who came after them. Today, we don't watch their films and we've forgetten
> their names and don't recognize their faces. It's really a shame. It's history
> that we just ignore.
People will listen to music down through history, read books from hundreds
of years ago, but when it comes to movies everyone stops at the New
Releases.
JN
Bob Champ
As someone who loves silent films and has a nice collection of them on
DVD and VHS tape, I can say that it isn't for lack of availability
that so many don't know the films of the great silent stars. I
suspect that most people really don't know how to look at silents.
Unfortunately nowadays many people won't even watch a movie in black
and white, giving us the horrible colorization phenomenon. Again, I
think this grows from ignorance of how to look at black and white
films and ignorance of its artistic possibilities--if indeed they are
interested in artistic possibilities.
I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all, but people really are
cheating themselves of the some of the finest cinematic experiences
ever. Many of these films are of extraordinary beauty.
Bob Champ
Bob Feigel
wrote:
I'm curious. Do your silent films come dubbed with the kind of
background music (eg: organ) that would have originally accompanied a
silent movie at the cinema, or are they completely silent? b
James Neibaur
b...@surfwriter.net.not wrote on 10/3/04 10:30 PM:
> I'm curious. Do your silent films come dubbed with the kind of
> background music (eg: organ) that would have originally accompanied a
> silent movie at the cinema, or are they completely silent? b
The silent films available from the better distributors (Milestone, Kino,
et. al.) are accompanied by appropriate music. Some films use original
sheet music that was written for the film and played back when the movie was
originally released. Top musicians are hired and the accompaniment is
usually outstanding (the Buster Keaton films are a notable exception,
unfortunately).
JN
MJohnson
We check our coats
and regretfully remember
the twentieth century: War, war, war, war
followed closely by manned space flight.
(from "The Museum of Tolerance")
Harry Krause
Followed by Bush:
There have been 1,198 coalition deaths, 1,059 Americans, 68 Britons, six
Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, one Estonian, one Hungarian, 19
Italians, one Latvian, 13 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11
Spaniards, two Thai and nine Ukrainians, in the war in Iraq as of
October 1, 2004. At least 7,532 U.S. troops have been wounded in action,
according to the Pentagon. From CNN.
Terrymelin
>DVD and VHS tape, I can say that it isn't for lack of availability
>that so many don't know the films of the great silent stars. I
>suspect that most people really don't know how to look at silents.
>Unfortunately nowadays many people won't even watch a movie in black
>and white, giving us the horrible colorization phenomenon. Again, I
>think this grows from ignorance of how to look at black and white
>films and ignorance of its artistic possibilities--if indeed they are
>interested in artistic possibilities.
>
>I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all, but people really are
>cheating themselves of the some of the finest cinematic experiences
>ever. Many of these films are of extraordinary beauty.
>
>Bob Champ
I think that one of the early problems was technical. The speed at which silent
films were played back from around 1950 on was too fast so it always looked
like everyone was running around like a chicken with their head cut off. Real
silent films -- played at the correct speed -- are not like that at all.
I think that turned a great many people off and gave them an impression that
silent film was not to be taken seriously.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>background music (eg: organ) that would have originally accompanied a
>silent movie at the cinema, or are they completely silent? b
Some of the ones I have have completely new scores written specifically for
them by people like the very talented Carl Davis.
Terry Ellsworth
James Neibaur
terry...@aol.com wrote on 10/4/04 8:42 AM:
> I think that one of the early problems was technical. The speed at which
> silent
> films were played back from around 1950 on was too fast so it always looked
> like everyone was running around like a chicken with their head cut off. Real
> silent films -- played at the correct speed -- are not like that at all.
>
> I think that turned a great many people off and gave them an impression that
> silent film was not to be taken seriously.
Also, people's first intro to silents was likely the television revivals of
old time comedies, with the fast-motion you mention, the jerky editing, and
the obtrusive sound effects. It was an injustice to masters like Chaplin,
Keaton, Langdon, Lloyd, Arbuckle, Normand, et. al.
JN
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, James Neibaur <jnei...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> Also, people's first intro to silents was likely the television
> revivals of old time comedies, with the fast-motion you mention, the
> jerky editing, and the obtrusive sound effects. It was an injustice
> to masters like Chaplin, Keaton, Langdon, Lloyd, Arbuckle, Normand,
> et. al.
Don't underestimate the effect of popular culture ridicule of silent
films -- and I don't just mean low pop culture. The most obvious
example is "Singin' In The Rain." Because some people foolishly
predicted that motion picture sound was a fad, the notion that silents
have anything at all to offer has been strongly deprecated since the
talkies took off.
I guess I am lucky that my intro to silent pictures was a PBS station
showing of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" when I was a kid. It was
shown properly, with no jerky stuff. Hoo-boy, did that thing ever
creep me out. I've seen scarier movies, but not many.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrymelin
luminous look of Swanson you see what true art can look like. Very little in
the sound era can match that kind of beauty.
Terry Ellsworth
Opus the Penguin
> in article 2s7rvhF...@uni-berlin.de, Bob Flaminio at
> b...@flaminio.com wrote on 10/2/04 9:21 AM:
>
>> I agree -- if there was no Elvis (from the waist up, at least),
>> there would have been no Beatles. Elvis' appearance on TV was
>> more important, and besides, Elvis was an American (this was
>> supposed to be "US" history, after all).
>
> Elvis was a necessary pioneer, and it is he (and others) who begat
> The Beatles. But the American/British thing works for me because
> the event signalled the Beatles coming to America, thus being a
> part of US history.
>
> Elvis should have been there too, though.
It's a really depressing list if you're William McKinley.
--
Opus the Penguin
Nobody reads my sig
Brad Ferguson
<terry...@aol.com> wrote:
Very little, yes, but look at the very last shot in "The Great
Dictator."