Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

TIME Magazines Person of the Year, 2011

Ellis

By Ellis
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

MattFancy

MattFancy

Posted
Posted

Here's the story:

Once upon a time, when major news events were chronicled strictly by professionals and printed on paper or transmitted through the air by the few for the masses, protesters were prime makers of history. Back then, when citizen multitudes took to the streets without weapons to declare themselves opposed, it was the very definition of news — vivid, important, often consequential. In the 1960s in America they marched for civil rights and against the Vietnam War; in the '70s, they rose up in Iran and Portugal; in the '80s, they spoke out against nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Europe, against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, against communist tyranny in Tiananmen Square and Eastern Europe. Protest was the natural continuation of politics by other means.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102132_2102373,00.html #ixzz1gWxt1MqP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GibbsFactor

GibbsFactor

Posted
Posted
Pretty good choice, I'd say.

I drive by Occupy DC everyday and they haven't given me an ounce of trouble. Had to secure the building a few times but other than that, nothing like those World Bank guys earlier in the decade.

The protests by the middle east have been amazing and long needed. Thank goodness for Twitter and Facebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forehead

Forehead

Posted
Posted

This made me curious, so I used Wiki to look of the history of person of the year. Time magazine does not have a great record. Aside from my personal view that awarding the distincton to a computer, or a group of people, etc is stupid, and the award is no longer a "person," I've gotto say that Time has got a bad track record on a lot of these. Consider:

1938: Adolf Hitler

1939 and 1942: Joseph Stalin

1951: Mohammed Mossadegh...wins award, British and Americans work to depose him two short years later.

1961: John F. Kennedy...shot two years later

1963: Martin Luther King...shot five years later

1971 and 1972: Richard Nixon

Admittedly I was just skimming for what jumped out at me, but man, there's a pattern here of either turning into a maniac or suffering some sort of disaster (or death) after getting this award. Hell, Vladimir Putin won the award just in 2007, aren't we pretty much against him by this point? I'm keeping my eye on him, and that sneaky Mark Zuckerberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpyaks3

jpyaks3

Posted
Posted
This made me curious, so I used Wiki to look of the history of person of the year. Time magazine does not have a great record. Aside from my personal view that awarding the distincton to a computer, or a group of people, etc is stupid, and the award is no longer a "person," I've gotto say that Time has got a bad track record on a lot of these. Consider:

1938: Adolf Hitler

1939 and 1942: Joseph Stalin

1951: Mohammed Mossadegh...wins award, British and Americans work to depose him two short years later.

1961: John F. Kennedy...shot two years later

1963: Martin Luther King...shot five years later

1971 and 1972: Richard Nixon

Admittedly I was just skimming for what jumped out at me, but man, there's a pattern here of either turning into a maniac or suffering some sort of disaster (or death) after getting this award. Hell, Vladimir Putin won the award just in 2007, aren't we pretty much against him by this point? I'm keeping my eye on him, and that sneaky Mark Zuckerberg.

"The person of the year profiles a person, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." I would say that the stupid **** like you and personal computer were dumb but everyone you picked out certainly had massive influence in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G.A.C.O.L.B.

G.A.C.O.L.B.

Posted
Posted
"The person of the year profiles a person, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." I would say that the stupid **** like you and personal computer were dumb but everyone you picked out certainly had massive influence in the world.

Yeah it's not for the "best" person in the world.

As far as people getting shot after winning it, that has tended to happen throughout history to powerful and influential people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebluefood

thebluefood

Posted
Posted
"The person of the year profiles a person, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." I would say that the stupid **** like you and personal computer were dumb but everyone you picked out certainly had massive influence in the world.

Wooooahh...easy tiger. I agree with you, but let's not lose our heads.

Going back to the topic at hand: yes, protesting was pretty big this year. I'm looking forward/dreading to see what the results of it are going to be in the coming years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G.A.C.O.L.B.

G.A.C.O.L.B.

Posted
Posted
Wooooahh...easy tiger. I agree with you, but let's not lose our heads.

Lol, he's not talking about "you" as in Forehead. He's talking about "you" as in Time putting a ****ing mirror on the cover and naming "You" the Person of the Year. Lame as hell.

---------- Post added December-14th-2011 at 02:04 PM ----------

tumblr_l77c1yr3BK1qcbwnwo1_400.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forehead

Forehead

Posted
Posted
'The person of the year profiles a person, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." I would say that the stupid **** like you and personal computer were dumb but everyone you picked out certainly had massive influence in the world.

Ah see, I wasn't aware of that...I thought there was at least some element of "good" invovled to win. For instance, the Munich Agreement in 1938 was why Hitler won. True, it only delayed his plans, but it was some sort of brokered peace deal. It just seemed from my skimming that winning the award carries a bit of a curse with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpyaks3

jpyaks3

Posted
Posted
Ah see, I wasn't aware of that...I thought there was at least some element of "good" invovled to win. For instance, the Munich Agreement in 1938 was why Hitler won. True, it only delayed his plans, but it was some sort of brokered peace deal. It just seemed from my skimming that winning the award carries a bit of a curse with it.

I think it is definitely better that they go with most influential because "good" can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people, this way you get to avoid moral judgements. Although they can always cop-out with stuff like the personal computer as well. Really glad they went with the protester over the general because in my mind it is pretty clear cut what the biggest events from the last year were and Osama Bin Ladens death is not all that far up on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tulane Skins Fan

Tulane Skins Fan

Posted
Posted
I protested to my wife this year! I'm the man of the year!

Methinks thou doth protest too much!

Just messing with you. :)

---------- Post added December-14th-2011 at 02:40 PM ----------

This made me curious, so I used Wiki to look of the history of person of the year. Time magazine does not have a great record. Aside from my personal view that awarding the distincton to a computer, or a group of people, etc is stupid, and the award is no longer a "person," I've gotto say that Time has got a bad track record on a lot of these. Consider:

1938: Adolf Hitler

1939 and 1942: Joseph Stalin

1951: Mohammed Mossadegh...wins award, British and Americans work to depose him two short years later.

1961: John F. Kennedy...shot two years later

1963: Martin Luther King...shot five years later

1971 and 1972: Richard Nixon

Admittedly I was just skimming for what jumped out at me, but man, there's a pattern here of either turning into a maniac or suffering some sort of disaster (or death) after getting this award. Hell, Vladimir Putin won the award just in 2007, aren't we pretty much against him by this point? I'm keeping my eye on him, and that sneaky Mark Zuckerberg.

I don't think person of the year requires you to be on the right side, or a good side. I think the idea is to name someone who's been very influential. I don't think its supposed to be predictive of anything either. Its to name the person who had the most influence in the world over the previous year.

In that regard, I think all those people, including Hitler and Stalin, were pretty good choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stupidmorals

stupidmorals

Posted
Posted

I still think it should have been that guy in Tunisia that set himself on fire as his last recourse against the local police and officials screwing him over in every way. Which then sparked, eventually, the entire Arab Spring revolution. Which has, so far, toppled three national governments and may well topple more. And, I think the examples of the massive protests in the Middle East are what provided the idea that a similarly huge, pervasive, and persistent style of protesting could also be effective here in the States and in Russia. I think that guy, indirectly, is responsible for much of the protesting that has occurred around the world.

Edit: His name was Mohamed Bouazizi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G.A.C.O.L.B.

G.A.C.O.L.B.

Posted
Posted
I still think it should have been that guy in Tunisia that set himself on fire as his last recourse against the local police and officials screwing him over in every way. Which then sparked, eventually, the entire Arab Spring revolution. Which has, so far, toppled three national governments and may well topple more. And, I think the examples of the massive protests in the Middle East are what provided the idea that a similarly huge, pervasive, and persistent style of protesting could also be effective here in the States and in Russia. I think that guy, indirectly, is responsible for much of the protesting that has occurred around the world.

Edit: His name was Mohamed Bouazizi.

Now that I think about it, 100% agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FanboyOf91

FanboyOf91

Posted
Posted
I still think it should have been that guy in Tunisia that set himself on fire as his last recourse against the local police and officials screwing him over in every way. Which then sparked, eventually, the entire Arab Spring revolution. Which has, so far, toppled three national governments and may well topple more. And, I think the examples of the massive protests in the Middle East are what provided the idea that a similarly huge, pervasive, and persistent style of protesting could also be effective here in the States and in Russia. I think that guy, indirectly, is responsible for much of the protesting that has occurred around the world.

Edit: His name was Mohamed Bouazizi.

+1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zazzaro703

Zazzaro703

Posted
Posted
I still think it should have been that guy in Tunisia that set himself on fire as his last recourse against the local police and officials screwing him over in every way. Which then sparked, eventually, the entire Arab Spring revolution. Which has, so far, toppled three national governments and may well topple more. And, I think the examples of the massive protests in the Middle East are what provided the idea that a similarly huge, pervasive, and persistent style of protesting could also be effective here in the States and in Russia. I think that guy, indirectly, is responsible for much of the protesting that has occurred around the world.

Edit: His name was Mohamed Bouazizi.

I thought his name was Robert Paulson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...