First man on the moon.

[notyoueither]

I haven't found American numbers yet, but I did find this.

A Sad Statement. Snapshot of Canadian Youth

A total of 16% of youth knew that Marc Garneau was the first Canadian in space, while 10% thought that it was Neil Armstrong. Another popular answer given was Roberta Bondar (4%). M. Garneau's recognition was highest in Quebec with 36% and 10% or less in all other provinces.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Pekka
Geronimo, yes. It's a subjective matter after all. But about this moon man? Who cares. He flew far away in a tin can. And probably is a wife beater.

Wife Beater? i doubt it. I don't think it's *that* common. Surely less than half the men his age were wife beaters, at least in North America.

As to the first part of your post, sure I agree that hardly anyone really cares apart from Techumseh and maybe 3 or 4 other guys somewhere.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I haven't found American numbers yet, but I did find this.

A Sad Statement. Snapshot of Canadian Youth

A total of 16% of youth knew that Marc Garneau was the first Canadian in space, while 10% thought that it was Neil Armstrong. Another popular answer given was Roberta Bondar (4%). M. Garneau's recognition was highest in Quebec with 36% and 10% or less in all other provinces.

In US grade schools Neil armstrong used to get drilled in pretty much like christopher columbus. I figured Neil Armstrong and christopher columbus have about the same name recognition here. I suppose I have to admit there's no reason for me to imagine the same holds true among Canadians however.

[Pekka]

well you tell me this.. who was the first man who ate spaghetti? No it was not Mr. Spaghetti. The real answer is, who cares?!

It is not important who did what first or when, in history, the only thing that matters is what actually did happen, period. That's the only reason we need history, to learn from it and to entertain us. It has no other values. And this moon man has nothing but entertainment value but let's face it, it's long expired already. You know, shut up old man Mr moon man I have better things to do, like play Halo 2, look, I'm on the moon as well, what's up now old man, what's up now?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Pekka
well you tell me this.. who was the first man who ate spaghetti? No it was not Mr. Spaghetti. The real answer is, who cares?!

It is not important who did what first or when, in history, the only thing that matters is what actually did happen, period. That's the only reason we need history, to learn from it and to entertain us. It has no other values. And this moon man has nothing but entertainment value but let's face it, it's long expired already. You know, shut up old man Mr moon man I have better things to do, like play Halo 2, look, I'm on the moon as well, what's up now old man, what's up now?

You seem to hold a grudge against this old moon man. You do realise that he has shown by his actions (avoiding public spotlight) that he agrees that the public has no legitimate reason to care about him personally. You two would probably get along just fine.

[Darius871]

I'm surprised nobody's posted another obvious answer to the OP: Armstrong was mere cargo, as was every astronaut prior to 1977. Why should we give a damn about him, as opposed to the Apollo Program in general?

[Pekka]

Geronimo, yeah we would prolly get along fine but that's not the point.

It's like people here praise Ghandi and his loser ways. I've attacked him numerous times and I continue to do so.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Darius871
I'm surprised nobody's posted another obvious answer to the OP: Armstrong was mere cargo, as was every astronaut prior to 1977. Why should we give a damn about him, as opposed to the Apollo Program in general?

I sorta made that point when I said close to 100% of the credit belonged to others.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Geronimo

It sure feels like if I asked people who the first man on the moon it would take a while to find someone who wouldn't answer Neil armstrong unless they thought it was some weird trick question or something.

I know that's what you think it should be, but knowledge of public ignorance of basic facts tells me you are overly optimistic. Average people are more likely to know about James T Kirk than correctly name any of the participants of Apollo 11.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Geronimo


In US grade schools Neil armstrong used to get drilled in pretty much like christopher columbus. I figured Neil Armstrong and christopher columbus have about the same name recognition here. I suppose I have to admit there's no reason for me to imagine the same holds true among Canadians however.

Random Canadians tend to have a good knowledge of what goes on in the US, especially when they are events that transcend America's borders.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I know that's what you think it should be, but knowledge of public ignorance of basic facts tells me you are overly optimistic. Average people are more likely to know about James T Kirk than correctly name any of the participants of Apollo 11.

i don't think it should be that way at all. I don't think it makes a damn of difference which astronaut was first on the moon. I think having kids memorize names of such people is a tremendous waste of time with no practical bennefit.

Having said that I'm still unconvinced a randomly selected american is more likely to be able to identify the name "james T kirk" than "Neil Armstrong". Probably about as many will say "kirk is one of those star trek guys" (or even "one of those guys on star wars, which has much greater name recognition among non sci fi fans) as will say "Neil armstrong was an astronaut".

About equal numbers could probably go further and say "kirk was captain of the enterprise in star trek" as those who could go further and say "Neil armstrong was the first man on the moon".

I think Kirk has much *much* greater face recognition though. I'm not even sure I could recognize armstrong in a line up.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Random Canadians tend to have a good knowledge of what goes on in the US, especially when they are events that transcend America's borders.

That's what I thought but I imagine name recognition of Neil armstrong may be a blind spot for them from what you are telling me. Nothing wrong with that though. As I said I see little point in expecting people to learn the names of astronauts.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I sorta made that point when I said close to 100% of the credit belonged to others.

Sorry, missed that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Geronimo


i don't think it should be that way at all. I don't think it makes a damn of difference which astronaut was first on the moon. I think having kids memorize names of such people is a tremendous waste of time with no practical bennefit.

Having said that I'm still unconvinced a randomly selected american is more likely to be able to identify the name "james T kirk" than "Neil Armstrong". Probably about as many will say "kirk is one of those star trek guys" (or even "one of those guys on star wars, which has much greater name recognition among non sci fi fans) as will say "Neil armstrong was an astronaut".

About equal numbers could probably go further and say "kirk was captain of the enterprise in star trek" as those who could go further and say "Neil armstrong was the first man on the moon".

I think Kirk has much *much* greater face recognition though. I'm not even sure I could recognize armstrong in a line up.

'Should be' by stats, not by some higher power deciding what 'should be'. I simply disagree with your appraisal of public knowledge of significant figures.

Oh, and the names are what make history something that humans can relate to.

Bio unit 1,987,777,982 conquered China simply doesn't have the same ring to it, and just doesn't hold an audience.

Part of history is judging. Who did well. Who plays the villain. Who overcame long odds and did something spectacular. What was the character of the person? You need names to hang those judgements on.

Of course the Great Man theory has it's limits. Very definite ones, but that doesn't take an ounce of deserved recognition away from people like Ghandi or Mandella. Some person might have done the same, but they are the ones who suffered, persevered, and did it.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


'Should be' by stats, not by some higher power deciding what 'should be'. I simply disagree with your appraisal of public knowledge of significant figures.

Oh, and the names are what make history something that humans can relate to.

Bio unit 1,987,777,982 conquered China simply doesn't have the same ring to it, and just doesn't hold an audience.

Part of history is judging. Who did well. Who plays the villain. Who overcame long odds and did something spectacular. What was the character of the person? You need names to hang those judgements on.

Of course the Great Man theory has it's limits. Very definite ones, but that doesn't take an ounce of deserved recognition away from people like Ghandi or Mandella. Some person might have done the same, but they are the ones who suffered, persevered, and did it.

these are good points. I just think usually they end up putting the cart before the horse so the students end up with mostly name recognition and less grasp of what actually happened and how. I don't advocate omitting the names rather just de-emphasising the "who" relative to the how and whys.