Misao Okawa, born March 5, 1898, has died. She had the distinction of being the oldest person alive, but who is the oldest person now?
Japan identifies a 115-year-old woman as its new oldest person. She was born on March 15, 1900. Perhaps beyond Japan, there is someone older, but it may be that there is suddenly no one left from the 19th century.
IN THE COMMENTS: I am made to regret that I didn't title this post: Have we just lost the last person who was alive in the 1800s?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५४ टिप्पण्या:
I want to see the LONG FORM birth certificate on Hillary first.
Wow -- her husband died 80+ years ago!
People who were alive in the 19th century are now serving in the Indiana Legislature.
1900 was the last year of the 19th century.
Horrors, if we have lost this treasure relic.
All that wisdom from their long life, gone.
Just think, in 100 years, everyone on this blog will be gone too.
In 200 years, everyone alive today will be gone.
Oh, well...
Gregorocentrists! Ha!
We've lost the first person to live in the 22nd century.
RIP, Mam! You hand a long run.
Levinas, Totality and Infinity, p.56
quote
The being that thinks at first seems to present itself, to a gaze that conceives it, as integrated into a whole. In reality it is so integrated only once it is dead. Life permits it an as-for-me, a leave of absence, a postponement, which precisely is interiority. Totalization is accomplished only in history--in the history of the historiographers, that is, among the survivors. It rests on the affirmation and the conviction that chronological order of the history of the historians outlines the plot of being in itself, analogous to nature. The time of universal history remains as the ontological ground in which particular existences are lost, are computed, and in which at least their essences are recapitulated. Birth and death as punctual moments, and the interval that separates them, are lodged in this universal time of the historian, who is a survivor. Interiority as such is a "nothing," "pure thought," nothing but thought. In the time of the historiographer interiority is the non-being in which everything is possible, for in it nothing is impossible--the "everything is possible" of madness. This possibility is not an essence, that is, is not the possibility of a being. But for there to be a separated being, for the totalization of history not to be the ultimate schema of being, it is necessary that death, which for the survivor is an end, be not only this end; it is necessary that there be in dying another direction, than the one which leads to the end as to a point of impact, in the duration of survivors. Separation designates the possibility of an *existent* being set up and having its own destiny to itself, that is, being born and dying without the place of this birth and this death in the time of universal history being the measure of its reality. Interiority is the very possibility of a birth and a death that do not derive their meaning from history. Interiority institutes an order different from historical time in which totality is constituted, an order where everything is *pending*, where what is no longer possible historically remains always possible. The birth of a separated being that must proceed from nothingness, absolute beginning, is an event historically absurd. So also is the activity issuing from a will which, within historical continuity, at each instant marks the point of a new origin.
"1900 was the last year of the 19th century."
19th centuries were complete at the stroke of midnight, on January 1st, 1900. All born in 1900 were born in the 20th century.
True fact: When you turn 60, you are beginning your 7th decade. I once made a woman extremely outraged when, on her 60th birthday, she announced that she was now in her 6th decade, and I corrected her.
I know... it's the old there-was-no-year-called-zero routine.
I should have written: Have we just lost the last person who was alive in the 1900s?
Scripture speaks of "living a full life span" as a blessing from God. She establishes the half way point as 57.5. So not living the second half would be a curse.
The challenge is to protect Medicare from the Professional Progressives war on life by setting early death targets.
At 117, that's an interesting use of "suddenly." Reminds me of Fletch:
Dr.: It's a shame about Ed.
Fletch: Oh, it was. ... To go so suddenly like that.
Dr.: He was dying for years.
Fletch: Sure, but the end was very, very sudden.
Dr.: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.
Fletch: Yeah, but I mean the very end, when he actually died. That was extremely sudden.
I think you mean the 1800's
Wjj Hoge is correct, 1900 was the last year of the 19th century.
The difference between the Millennium and year 2000
I know... it's the old there-was-no-year-called-zero routine.
If you want one of us can mansplain it to you.
Math is hard.
While it is true that 19 centuries finished at the end of 12/31/1899, that is true of every instant, i.e., we can specify a period of 1900 years preceding them. However 1900 years earlier was the beginning -- not the end -- of 1 BC (or BCE if you prefer). There is no year 0. So if you meant that there were 19 centuries AD, that is incorrect. That occurred at the end of 1900.
Your analogy with decades of life fails because for the first year we do say that someone is 0 years old. [Well we usually say some
months or whatever, but we don't use an age of 1 until after a full year has passed.]
This was a matter of some debate during the Y2K transition.
Mrs. Susannah Mushatt Jones at her 115th birthday.
Maybe not! Google says she is alive.
"I should have written: Have we just lost the last person who was alive in the 1900s?"
Keep trying.
Here is Seinfeld's take on it:
Newman's Millennium Party
There was a year 0, it was just called 1BC.
IN THE COMMENTS: I am made to regret that I didn't title this post: Have we just lost the last person who was alive in the 1900s?
1800s?
The Professor is right. The first year of the new 100 year century is named by the finishing off year of that 100 years. A century contains a full 100 years.
I'd love to mansplain the difference between the 19th Century and the 1900's, but that would constitute a micro-aggression and might get me banned from visiting Madison the next time a good band is playing the Orpheum.
"Ann Althouse said...
I should have written: Have we just lost the last person who was alive in the 1900s?"
Wrong again professor, should be "1800's".
Are any WWI veterans still breathing?
It reminds me of a Jorge Luis Borges story called TheWitness concerning the things that die with the death of one person: "in the course of time there was one day that closed the last eyes that looked on Christ, The Battle of Junin and the love of Helen died with the death of one man". He goes on to wonder what will die with him and they are small fleeting glimpses such as that of a bar of sulfur in a drawer.
I blame the Mohammadans. It's them and their cursed zero that has caused all this grief.
Wikipedia say there are 4 survivors left from the 1800s
Succumbing to the irresistable urge to explicate, often mistaken for 'mansplaining.'
If you were born one second after midnight in a year we will call '1', you will be 'one year old' after the year '1' is over, i.e., in year '2'. Similarly, you will be 100 years old after the year '100' is over. All through the year '100', you will still be in your first century. You will be 1800 years old when the year '1800' is over. (Just wait long enough and you will see.) The nineteenth century began when the 18th century was over, i.e., the end of the year 1800. The 19th century started at the beginning of its year '1' -- 1801 -- and ended at the end of its 'year 100' -- 1900.
Which Hugh Grant movie is that extended quote from rhhardin from........Living past 100 is better than not living past 100, but it seems to me that of all the golden prizes extended longevity is the least enviable........The nineteenth century was mankind's quantum leap. The great thinkers of that century had terrible sex lives, but they got a lot done.
"Wrong again professor, should be "1800's"."
That was an indefensible blunder, so I just fixed it.
We number centuries for the sole purpose of grouping together years which share the same hundreds and thousand digits. That there was no year 0 is neither here nor there.
I went to an elementary school in the 1950s where most of the teachers were women born in the 1800s. All of my grandparents were born in the 1880s. My great-grandfather from Ireland was a cavalry trooper in a Union Army regiment during the civil war (with U.S. Grant's Army of the Tennessee and Roscrans' Army of the Cumberland).
I was a child of the 50s but actually was acculturated to the late 1800s--I was brought up and imbued with late 1800s sensibilities, mores, values, etc.
Amazing. I'm a very fortunate person.
"That was an indefensible blunder, so I just fixed it."
The defensible blunders remain.
"That was an indefensible blunder ..."
Chill. It's defensible.
I would have to live 46 years more to match this lady.
Not . . . gonna . . . happen.
We number centuries so that we have a simple shorthand for discussing significant chunks of history without specifying exact dates.
That makes the simple shorthand a lousy way to handle the borderline case where we want to determine if some specific event is on one side of the border or the other.
If we try to use the simple rule of thumb in the borderline case we end up with the first century only having 99 years, which contradicts the definition of a century.
It is interesting how we have a psychological connection to arbitrary centuries. Since we are constantly losing the oldest person, but the average oldest person probably varies little, our connection to the past is always moving forward. But there is loss we feel about an arbitrary spot on our calendar that could be completely different if we had a different start date for counting the years. I am stating the obvious, I am sure, but it is interesting to me.
Or, we could just agree that the 1st Century had only 99 years and stop being persnickety about this.
Some monk screwed up and we get to argue about it for all time.
Which Hugh Grant movie is that extended quote from rhhardin from..
The book was so good in the 80s that I typed in the whole thing, so as to be able to search it easily.
I told Vicki Hearne about it and she liked it enough to cite it a couple of times later.
But the ability to read a poet/philosopher like Levinas is really gone today, mostly.
Nevertheless he's right.
Michael said...
Or, we could just agree that the 1st Century had only 99 years...
We could, if we wanted to all be wrong.
Are any WWI veterans still breathing?
They'd be at minimum 112, 113 years old now. Doubt it.
Wikip says the last one died in 2012.
Soon, everyone alive will be have been born after the Cubs last won the World Series.
"... the stroke of midnight, on January 1st, 1900."
Is midnight the minute after 11:59 pm on December 31 or on January 1?
Are any WWI veterans still breathing?
Nope, last known one died a couple years ago.
Lost her? She's over 116 years old, how far could she have gone?!
The astronomers use a year 0, but not the historians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proleptic_Julian_calendar
Historians since Bede have traditionally represented the years preceding AD 1 as "1 BC", "2 BC", etc. Bede and later Latin writers chose not to place a "year zero" (nulla in Latin) between the years 1 BC and AD 1. Thus the year 1 BC would be a leap year, being four years before AD 4. However to help to determine an interval in years across the BC/AD boundary, it is more convenient to use a slightly different convention that includes a year zero and to represent earlier years as negative numbers. This is the convention used in "astronomical year numbering". In this system the year 0 is equivalent to 1 BC in Bede's system, and is a leap year, though in actuality there were no leap years in the actual calendar at this time due to the leap year error.
The year 1 is actually quite possibly the first year the current calendar was used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar
(6) after 9BC, there were twelve years without leap years, so that the leap days Caesar would have had in 5BC, 1BC and AD4 were omitted
(7) after AD4 the calendar was operated as Caesar intended, so that the next leap year was AD8 and then leap years followed every fourth year thereafter.[48]
Now, if the year now called 4 was the first regular leap year in the Julian calendar, and the preceding year were not, a perpetual Julian calendar is accurate back to If the year 4 January 1, of the year 1. That is one opinion.
Or, if the year 8 was the first regular leap year, the calendar is accurate back to the year 5.
It's a curse.
Anyone with that title is doomed.
Think I'm wrong?
Just watch what happens to the next "oldest person alive."
And the one after that.
And all the ones that follow.
To answer your question: No.
CAMDEN, Ark. (KTHV/AP/USAToday) – Camden's Gertrude Weaver is now officially being recognized as the oldest person on Earth, according to Guinness World Book of Records.
Weaver will celebrate her 117th birthday on July 4 of this year; she was born in 1898.
The daughter of sharecroppers who witnessed the Civil War, Gertrude Weaver was born in southwest Arkansas near the border with Texas and was married in 1915,according to the Associated Press. She and her husband had four children, all of whom have died except for a son, now in his 90s.
Weaver lives at Silver Oaks Health and Rehabilitation, a nursing home in Camden, Ark., about two hours southwest of the state's capital city, Little Rock.
According to an article in Time magazine, some of the highlights of Weaver's week are manicures, Bible study and "wheelchair dancing," which she does three times a week. "We chair dance because we can't get up anymore," Weaver told Time. She is also visited regularly by friends and her granddaughter Gradie Welch, who is nearly 80. "She is a loving and compassionate grandmother," Welch told the magazine.
So how has she lived so long? "Kindness," she told Time. "Treat people right and be nice to other people the way you want them to be nice to you."
Also, she says, it helps to have strong religious beliefs. "You have to follow God. Don't follow anyone else," she told the local Camden News. "Be obedient and follow the laws and don't worry about anything. I've followed Him for many, many years and I ain't tired."
Weaver's new title comes after the world's oldest person, a Japanese woman, died Wednesday, a few weeks after celebrating her 117th birthday.
Misao Okawa died of heart failure and stopped breathing as her grandson and nursing home workers stood by her side, praising her for achieving a healthy long life, said Tomohiro Okada, an official at her Osaka nursing home.
"She went so peacefully, as if she had just fallen asleep," Okada said. "We miss her a lot."
Okawa, born in Osaka on March 5, 1898, was recognized as the world's oldest person by Guinness World Records in 2013.
Okada said Okawa lost her appetite about 10 days ago.
Okawa, the daughter of a kimono maker, said at her birthday celebration that her life seemed rather short.
Okawa married her husband, Yukio, in 1919, and they had two daughters and a son. She was survived by four grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. Her husband died in 1931.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Paul Zrimsek said...
We number centuries for the sole purpose of grouping together years which share the same hundreds and thousand digits....
So that's why we call the 1900's the nineteenth century?
Remember adjusting the vertical hold and rabbit ears on a b&w television set. The majority of people alive today have no idea of what I'm talking about. Those were hard times, but they built character.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा