Yeah, maybe someone’s political agenda figured into the Wounded Knee allusion. Or maybe not. There’s something compellingly historical about Indian battles. Or “battles”.
Were there heath bars buried at Wounded Knee? I thought it was an Almond Joy. 
I think the obituary should be pitted for including something totally irrelevant than something that bashes America. I don’t want my obit to read, “monstro, a wetland biologist, was born in 1977, the year Elvis died”. That’s strange.
“Bashing”, (such as gay bashing) as I understand it is to take someone, and punish them for something for which they should really not be blamed. However, the US is definitely to blame for the incident you dislike, and having that pointed to you is to ignore reality.
You know why I hate Elvis Presley? Because his death took all the attention away from Groucho Marx, who died three days after Presley, and whose life deserved more attention.
“monstro, a wetland biologist, was born in 1977, the year Groucho died”
Better?
If it had been 1889 it would be …the year the Eiffel Tower opened. 1891 … Thomas Adison patents the radio. Why does providing context bother you so much?
Unless you die at a very old age, they likely wouldn’t bother mentioning what else happened the year you died. If you’re 135 when you die, it might help the reader of the obitiuary get a feel for how long that was by pointing out that Elvis was born that year too, especially because by that time he will be a worshipped deity and hence his birth the most important thing that happened the whole century, let alone that year.
Let’s e-mail Reuters and suggest they change their story to reflect an occurrence more suitable to the obit of a really old Dutch woman.
For instance, they could note that 1890 was the year that Wilhelmina became the first woman to ascend to the throne of the Netherlands.
Royalty is cool, and we wouldn’t have to wonder about whether the Wounded Knee massacre would ever have occurred if heath bars had been handed out beforehand.
I think it’s relevant, and I don’t see it’s bashing America. Obituaries are about putting somebody’s life in context. If that means demonstrating that they were born into a world where America was still fighting battles on its own continent, where the west still was genuinely wild - and implicitly pointing out that they have witnessed its subsequent rise to the world’s dominant power - then so be it. In this case, this was done with a simple reference to a well-known historical event. If she’d been a year younger, it’d might’ve been “The same year as Edison patented the radio”. 1889, and maybe “the Oklahoma land rush”. That the most notable event of 1890 was an inglorious one for America is unfortunate, but it would be irresponsible journalism to avoid ever mentioning such things.
Maybe that would be suitable to an obit written for a Dutch audience, but given this one is in English we can assume that’s not the case.
Gangster, may I point out to you that you are attempting to read an anti-American bias into an article about the death of the wold’s oldest living woman? Do you not think that’s just the tiniest bit silly?
If Reuters for some reason wanted to bash the US, don’t you think they’d move wire articles whose main subjects were, you know, bashing the US?
Anyway, congratulations. This little item is shaping up nicely as a strong contender for Most Idiotic Pit Thread of All Time.
And contains just the slightest suggestion of reincarnation… 
They can’t report facts! Facts make us look bad! Fucking un-American! Can’t we charge them under the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act or something?
Perhaps I should have said, “The world was a very different place in 1890, and the Wounded Knee bit brings out that differentness more than the others do.”
Plus, we kinda DID massacre those Indian women and children. Let’s not be like the Japanese trying to ignore the Rape of Nanking. Warts and all and all that.
Putting it in context doesn’t bother “so much” (although I don’t think it adds much context at all), it is the way they did it that bothers me.
Well yeah, but in the OP’s instance, the primary reason that this woman’s death was particularly notable (other than to her family & friends) is her age. And a powerful way to emphasize her extraordinary lifespan is to highlight the vast difference between 1890 and now … in particular, by referencing an event that instantly evokes an era looooong past.
Honestly, assuming that this was “America bashing” is one helluva knee-jerk reaction.
As critical as I am of my country, I have to say that statement looks sorely out of place in that obituary. I mean, seriously, it looks completely random. I was half-expecting at least some tenuous connection between the Dutch woman and Sioux Indians with something like that thrown in.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily offensive to me, but it certainly seems more than just a tad slanted. You don’t usually find such off-the-wall historical references in obituaries. For US historical reference, how about somethink like “was born when Benjamin Harrison was in office” or “before the invention of the telegraph” or something. I mean, the US massacre of the Sioux, unfortunately, does not provide me with a good frame of reference.
I have to believe people are being somewhat disingenous in arguing that this statement doesn’t look a little suspect.
Do I get a trophy or something?
Ah, so you’re one of those Kool-Aid drinkers who claims those Indians weren’t illegal combatants, right?
Yes, I am completely denying it happened. That is the point of my OP.
Dunno. Ask Giraffe. Maybe he’d be willing to part with an SMB coffee cup.