Mossadegh is also commonly spelled Mossedeq. I tried several variations of the spelling because I was certain he was the winner in 1951 but none worked.
Along with Rudy Giuliani, and one of our greatest, most beautiful minds, All-American Lunatic, Person of the Year 1995, the sweet Newt Gingrich in its government.
The media reporting accurately on the misdeeds of those in power is not a problem. People being led to believe by those in power that this is a problem, is a problem.
Interesting thing to consider: If we count everyone who could be considered part of the abstract concepts as having been Time Person of the Year, who has been Time Person of the Year the most times? For example Donald Trump has been Time Person of the Year in 1966, 2006 and 2016 (and maybe 1988 depending on whether you believe Trump is a part of the Earth).
Trump arguably won in 1988, as well, though most of his work endangering the Earth would come later. and Zuckerberg should get credit for 1982, as he is likely a robot of some sort.
I'll be honest, I have no idea who Grove, Ho, Ueberroth, Sirica, Brandt or Adenauer (can make a reasonable guess), Curtice, or Young are. Got most of the rest. I'm also not sure which good samaritans are being referred to in 2005, or why '75 was an especially important year for American women, or '60 was significant for US scientists. Could make reasonable guesses for the latter two.
I have found, generally speaking, that otherwise unknown people who win are the ones whose work is most admirable. World leaders often win because the sheer scope of their power grants them disproportionate influence over world events, but someone like David Ho (an AIDS researcher) or Andy Grove (who pioneered the semiconductor microchip) has to do something truly remarkable to rise above anonymity to national prominence. I know John Sirica was a federal judge who was instrumental in tying the Watergate scandal directly to Nixon. I don't know the others, except Harlow Curtice (CEO of GM), whom I just looked up because I was gobsmacked that anybody but Jonas Salk could be picked for 1955. The fact that Salk was passed over at all is pretty shocking. The fact that he was passed over for the CEO of a car company is incomprehensible.
I wasn't arguing that they were unimportant or not worth knowing. I was just fessing up to the ones I didn't know. I guess if there was any point that I was trying to make it might have been that being famous one year doesn't necessarily mean you'll be well-known for all time? But could just be my own ignorance, too.
They are huge in German history, but it's not as if they were key players of the Cold War in the way that US or Soviet leaders were. I guess they're nice to know but not necessarily general knowledge to Americans, or most foreigners for that matter.
Age has something to do with it, too, Kal. I remember hearing those names on the evening news when I was growing up - my mind can remember names from back then better than ones I hear now - for the most part, at least. Couldn't pull Selassie from the memory banks, though, no matter how hard I tried.
Brandt (69-74 chancellor) is one of the reasons why Germany is so open about its history today. His direct predecessor had been a member of the Nazi party, while he himself was an opponent. Brandt renounced claims of lands that had become Polish after WW2, which was an outrageous act for many back then (old, conservative guys in my family still call him a "traitor"). Here's a photo of him falling to his knees before a Ghetto memorial in Warsaw. Both are important symbolic steps of coming to terms with the past. He got the Nobel Peace Prize (1971) for relaxing/establishing relations with the Eastern Bloc. The latter policy arguably helped pave the way for the 1989/90 revolutions and German reunification, according to some of the key players of both eras.
He was also the mayor of West Berlin at the time the wall came up and so he was there when Kennedy made his famous "I'm a Berliner" speech. I think it was in this context I first heard of him.
Adenauer (49-63 chancellor) was an ancient guy who had been some kind of an antagonist to the Nazis way back in the Weimar Republic. His most notable achievements are probably being one of the founding fathers of what was to become the EU, establishing a French-German friendship along with de Gaulle, and perhaps not falling for Stalin's offer to reunify Germany as a "neutral" state. Nowadays, his chancellorship is often linked with the Economic Miracle, though it probably owes more to historical circumstances, and less to any politician's initiative.
I got Adenauer because the quiz that was featured right before this one was "People who lived a very long time", and he made it to 91 but wasn't on there. His nickname in Germany was "der Alte" (the old guy).
Also by the way, this may be the reason why so many people complain about US-centrism. What is an important part of my history, is at best a footnote for 99% of the people here. Yes, I can make a quiz about Helmut Schmidt, who is considered Germany's greatest chancellor. But no one takes or comments on it, and there is no counterpart to Jetpunk or Sporcle in my language, or likely in any language other than English. As a foreigner you feel as if you have to adapt to US culture (which admittedly is a good way to learn). You also feel that Americans are in a privileged position, that their knowledge matters more than yours, and this sparks an inferiority complex. The whiners are still wrong, of course, because Quizmaster is as inclusive as makes sense with an audience that only has a diverse minority of foreigners.
Well, to be fair Time is an American magazine. And after the US election quiz about which states switched to Biden in 2020, I offered to make a quiz about which Burundian provinces went for Nkurunziza in 2015. Would you have taken it? :)
mf3, no I would not have taken it because I don't know much about Burundi. Neither do many people here know much about German post-war politics. I mentioned that in my comment, which I don't think you really understood. And while Time is an American magazine, their title doesn't go to the person who influenced the US the most, or the American with the most influence. So it is fair to assume the award is about world events.
Thunberg was OK until she made the ridiculous statement that politicians had stole her youth . a privileged western European teen. The poor kids in Syria or the refugee kids washed up on Mediterranean beaches ,the kids in war zones or in desperate poverty around the world have had their youth stolen not her.
He parents stole her youth by cruelly thrusting her into the spotlight. She is not source of wisdom. Neither should she be an object of scorn. She is, like all of us, just a person trying to make their way in world.
I don't think she literally meant her own youth. Also look at this article: '“Our stories have been told over and over again,” the 16-year-old Swede said [...] “It’s really about them,” Thunberg added of the young activists from developing countries already facing the effects of climate change'"
You don't think Hitler has, for better or worse, done the most to influence the events of the year 1938? Because that's what the award is supposed to be about.
The award isn't about character, though. It's supposed to be about who influenced the world most, and Hitler was pretty unarguably extremely influential on a global scale in 1938.
It's hard for me to see consistency in the choice of winners. If it's really about the most powerful people, many are far from that. How have Biden and Harris, who will not even take office until next January, influenced world events more than Xi (who has never appeared on the list!), Putin, Trump? Or Bill Gates, who after all personally created the virus and the vaccine for it, brainwashed the world's population with the exception of a few freethinkers, and will have most of us chipped and killed by the end of the year (everyone who took that seriously please seek help or go here). In some instances I think they were trying to sum up the year's themes in one person, see Giuliani and Greta. Then why not choose Fauci or some other virologist for 2020? And while I'm not one to often complain about US-centrism, it's bizarre to see a news broadcaster and the guy who investigated the Lewinsky scandal here.
There are quite a few missing from the list even by the magazine's own standards -- Mao Zedong, Bill Gates, Golda Meir, etc. -- and there are some recent ones I don't remember (David Ho? I've heard of his possible brother Don in Hawaii...)
Saddam invaded a small country and got kicked out quickly. Surely devastating for many Kuwaitis but there must be better candidates in a year where the Eastern Bloc pretty much collapsed and a new world order was established.
I'm disappointed in this year's picks for Person of the Year. Even though Biden and Harris won the US election, they were definitely not the most influential people or embody the difficulties of this especially crazy year. It should have gone to "The Essential Workers," or "The COVID Fighters," or "Dr. Fauci" (even if he is US-centric, still an important figure).
What a sad pick for 2021. Tesla's stock value is ridiculous. They are only selling a few hundred thousand Teslas any given year. There are semi-luxury car companies with WAY better sales figures than Tesla (BMW, for instance). Saying that Tesla is the world's most valuable car brand is like saying NFTs are the world's most valuable currency. Sure, gullible people who board the hype train will overvalue it, but it's just all hype. The guy's erratic social media garbage is the only thing that makes his products unique, and I am almost positive his company's stock will eventually fail because Tesla doesn't make nearly enough money to justify the stock price. You know that crazy profit Tesla made last year? It was selling carbon credits to car companies that actually DID sell a lot of cars. Maybe it's a good pick... the man who might single-handedly lead the US into a recession with insipid tweets about crypto, NFTs, and even how his own company's stocks are overvalued.
Also, he named his son X AE A-xii. What a stupid, selfish thing to do. Nothing says that you're an out-of-touch, undeservedly rich person quite like giving your child a super unique name to tell the world that you're different and special.
In 2012 Time created an online poll to chose the person of the year and the person with the most votes was Kim Jong-un. The poll was then cancelled and Barack Obama was chosen instead.
Looking at this list, I don't know why they feel compelled to give it out every year. Some of these honoree's look more like a feel good 3rd grade project before leaving on Christmas break (just add some macaroni art and glued on puffballs) than an insightful profile of an individual that has truly made an impact on the world in the previous year.
I do like trying this quiz every year, but this year seemed very tight time wise. I was still trying to read the years/clues when I ran out of time. QM have you cut the time, or is it just me?
Having to scroll up and down on the ipad definitely doesn't help.
When I saw an American CEO for 1955, I thought for sure it would be Walt Disney seeing as how Disneyland opened that year. Like (currently) 87% of other quiz takers, I've never even heard of this Curtice guy...
I wouldn't describe Queen Elizabeth II as a world leader. She was a constitutional monarch, a figurehead. Every other "world leader" on the list had executive power.
That’s where you’re wrong, and that’s precisely why the monarchy is such a devious institution - hardly anyone realises just how much power they have. Look up Queens Consent on Wikipedia for some examples of the British monarchy directly imposing its control on our supposed “democracy” or the countless Orders in Council (issued by the privy council) which also don’t need to pass the scrutiny of the Houses of Parliament.
Urgent reform needed, and a program of mass education for the ignorant British public.
We had a labour government in the lead up to the disastrous illegal invasion of Iraq, and some concerned labour backbenchers wanted to remove the power of the prime minister Tony Bliar to unilaterally declare war. They tabled a motion which would remove that authority without putting the question to parliament - a seemingly democratic notion. Our delightful Queen however, was only too happy to comply with a request by Bliar to withhold Queens Consent, killing the proposed bill dead in the water, before it could even be discussed in parliament. This way Bliar could have the war he so desperately wanted in his efforts to bootlick president Bush, and democracy was once again perverted in the name of profit and war.
Choosing Taylor Swift for this year is the ultimate proof of how delusional Americans are towards their own culture. With all the mess we got in the Middle East, in Ukraine, in South East Asia and even the US, the choice surprised me. Anyway, that's a fantastic quiz idea and a well-deserved feature.
2021 winner: The Magazine Buyer
Having to scroll up and down on the ipad definitely doesn't help.
If you can't get the first one right, why bother doing the rest.
Then 2007 has Vladmir Putin
Urgent reform needed, and a program of mass education for the ignorant British public.
#Notmyking
#Republic
#Notmyking