Perfect.
I am. Kidding that is.
Author of article: "Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890…
Me (in thought): Hmmmmm. 1890. I can’t quite get a grip on how long ago that was.
Author of article: “1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.”
Me (in thought): Ahhhhhh. Ok. That long ago.
The reporter must have had one of two thought processes
1
Hey this old lady’s like, really old. 1890. That’s so old it’s as old as…(checks boy’s big book of facts)… the Battle of Little Big Horn. That sounds good, I’ll use it.
2
I hate America. Every day in every way I must bring down the facist govermnent of the Satanic Overlord GWB. How shall I do this today? Hmmm… here’s a sweet innocent story about about a really old Dutch lady. I know, I’ll soak her hands in the blood of the horribly massacred Native Americans. Step 3 profit!
The smart money is on scenario 1 
Sorry. Actually, that was the wireless telegraph that was invented in 1896. Then again, I suppose that’s not the best historical marker, either. I suppose before the invention of the zipper or escalator wouldn’t be much better, eh? Or back when the US flag had only 43 stars?
I identify 1890 best with the year my great-grandfather was born. That might not work well for those outside my family though, as he was not Benjamin Harrison.
Letssee - before Pong? before the Maine blew up? while Queen Victoria was still alive?
I agree that option 1 is most likely.
People can determine fairly well how long ago 1890 was. Mentioning Wounded Knee in the article is extraneous, already given the date she was born. The story is technically flawed, regardless of intent. If an editor, I would never have approved this story. Don’t journalists have editors anymore?
When I hear “Wounded Knee”, I remember some sort of standoff from during my lifetime, not a massacre from 1890. As I’m not yet 115, I’m thinking it might not be the same event.
Ah, Google indicates it was the AIM movement in 1973. I’d never heard of the 1890 massacre until today (or I may have, but certainly not as a historical benchmark to mark the beginning of the last dcade of the 19th century. Heh, that would make a great way to describe 1890! The start of the last decade of the 19th century! But, alas, it contains no references to massacres carried out by the US.)
I’ve seen that type of thing all my life, where they mention some ancient thing happening in the year being discussed to emphasize how long ago it was. Do you really think this is a lack of an editor, or is just that editors don’t agree with you?
That cheap motherfucker. He takes all the money those people had and then makes them drink their poison mixed in Flavor-Aid? Christ, that shit’s so bad the cyanide was superfluous.
Like there’s that big a difference at her age. 
And having that line in a birthday article seems even more innapropriate, IMHO.
Maybe they should have just given historical events that happened duirng her lifetime?
“When Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper was born, Queen Victoria was still on the throne. She has seen two world wars, countless monarchies overthrown, she remembers the sinking of Titanic, the Hindenberg disaster, and the rise and fall of disco.”
Is that better?
If you know the date, you already have temporal perspective: you don’t also need an event.
So have I. But it simply is not necessary unless the article is covering the actual time period or event. In the case of the OP’s link, the author was covering neither. Thusly the mentioning of both was extraneous. I’m fairly certain most editors would agree this is technically accurate even if they don’t practice it.
Most informed and well-reasoned human beings know the “flavor” of the 1890 time period, even if they don’t know of Wounded Knee. And if they don’t, is it really the author’s job in that type of article to educate them?
Yes, it is the duty of the author. Well read people aren’t the only ones who read the paper, you know? Some people actually read more then just the editorial page, & Mallard Philmore.
:smack: Some [del]people[/del] of them actually read more then just the editorial page, & Mallard Philmore.
Actually, yes. That much better encapsulates for me the amount of time past.
May be a reach
As Scott Plaid pointed out, yes, it is.
Plus, it’s a human interest piece, and the author’s job is to make it interesting. This is one way to do so.
…
Saying she’s dead, huh.
Right after she said for the 243th time: “I sure hope I can make it to my birthday”.
You better all understand that I’m sending this thread directly to our Hendrickje. I hope she comes over and kicks your asses.
