http://nos.nl/artikel/460(...)g-altijd-trauma.htmlquote:Polderselectie nog altijd trauma
Toegevoegd: vrijdag 11 jan 2013, 08:00
Update: vrijdag 11 jan 2013, 11:13
Door redacteur Lambert Teuwissen
Eva Vriend kent de vooroordelen over Flevoland. "Op die kale vlakte gebeurt toch niks. Geef maar snel een dot gas op de A6. En als je in Almere een huis koopt, dan is dat omdat je Amsterdam niet kunt betalen", somt ze meewarig op.
Maar vlak na de drooglegging werden de IJsselmeerpolders gezien als een Hollands paradijs. Over de strenge selectieprocedure voor de moderne Adams en Eva's schreef Vriend 'Het Nieuwe Land'.
De vraag naar het nieuwe land was enorm, schrijft Vriend, zelf kleindochter van een van de gelukkigen. "Als je hiernaartoe kon verhuizen, dan ha
http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl(...)kers-Australie.dhtmlquote:De Europeanen waren niet de eerste buitenlanders die Australië bezochten. Indiërs zouden 4000 jaar geleden al voet hebben gezet op het eiland. Daarop wijst een studie van Max-Planck-instituut voor Evolutionaire Theorie in Leipzig. De onderzoeksresultaten zijn gepubliceerd in het tijdschrift PNAS van de Amerikaanse Nationale Academie van Wetenschappen.
quote:“Vlaanderen wil Slag van Waterloo dan toch niet herdenken”
Vlaanderen zal geen traject opzetten rond de herdenking van de slag van Waterloo in 2015. In de commissie onroerend erfgoed van het Vlaams Parlement werd hierover deze week een voorstel van resolutie van Vlaams volksvertegenwoordiger Dirk Van Mechelen weggestemd. Van Mechelen spreekt over een gemiste kans: “Nochtans beschikken we in Vlaanderen over een aantal aantrekkelijke sites, die bezocht kunnen worden in aansluiting op een bezoek aan het slagveld van Waterloo. Ik denk dan bijvoorbeeld aan het Fort Napoleon in Oostende en het Koninklijk Paleis op de Antwerpse Meir.”
Op 8 juni 1815 werd het Franse leger van Keizer Napoleon verslagen door een Geallieerd coalitieleger. “Ongetwijfeld zal de 200-jarige herdenking heel wat belangstelling met zich meebrengen,” aldus Van Mechelen. “De Waalse gewestregering trok liefst 40 miljoen euro uit voor de herinrichting van het slagveld en voor de verdere toeristische ontsluiting ervan. In april 2011 liet Vlaams minister Geert Bourgeois in een persbericht weten dat hij afspraken had gemaakt met zijn Waalse collega om ook Vlaanderen te betrekken bij de herdenking. Beide ministers en hun administraties zouden geregeld overleg hebben en voorstellen uitwerken.”
“De resolutie die in de commissie door de meerderheidspartijen werd weggestemd had als enige bedoeling om ervoor te zorgen dat er effectief werk wordt gemaakt van zo’n traject”, zegt Van Mechelen in een persmededeling. “De ervaring met de voorbereidingen rond de herdenking van de Eerste Wereldoorlog tonen aan dat dergelijke zaken heel wat voorbereiding vragen. In de week dat Vlaams minister Geert Bourgeois nog de resultaten van een studie voorstelde, waarin werd gewezen op het economische belang van de toeristische sector, zou je verwachten dat iedereen dit voorstel zou steunen. Zeker ook omdat we in Vlaanderen met bijvoorbeeld het Fort Napoleon in Oostende en het Koninklijk Paleis op de Antwerpse Meir over een aantal aantrekkelijke sites beschikken die in aansluiting op een bezoek aan het slagveld kunnen worden bezocht. Als je weet dat men mikt op 500.000 bezoekers per jaar is het potentieel onmiddellijk duidelijk,” vervolgt de vroegere erfgoedminister.
Van Mechelen: “Ik was dan ook zeer verwonderd dat de meerderheid dit voorstel van resolutie niet wou steunen. Blijkbaar is er sinds de aankondiging van april 2011 niets gebeurd en wordt vanuit die optiek het belang van de herdenking in vraag gesteld. Iedereen met enig historisch besef weet echter dat niet alleen binnen Europa maar mondiaal 200 jaar Waterloo op heel wat belangstelling zal kunnen rekenen. Het blijft ook eigenaardig vast te stellen dat partijen die het steeds over transfers hebben, nu geen gebruik willen maken van de mogelijkheid om ook in Vlaanderen een toeristisch en economisch graantje mee te pikken van de investeringen van de Waalse overheid.”
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9874quote:America's Bismarck: How Lincoln Created Industrial America by Martin Sieff
Everyone thinks they know who Abraham Lincoln is, but even after the new Steven Spielberg movie few Americans know about the full range of activities Lincoln commanded. He not only held the nation together, but he also set it onto the path of industrialization. Lincoln was America's Bismarck — and then some.
Abraham Lincoln was the real architect of the unprecedented global colossus of Industrial America. He pushed through and shaped the laws that allowed industrial and financial corporations to organize on an unprecedented scale. He provided them with more security from interference by government than private enterprise had ever before enjoyed in human history.
Lincoln held the United States together through an unprecedented shedding of blood. Then he tied it together with literal bonds of steel. He pushed through financial incentives for private companies to build railroads that united the continent. This made continental-scale trade possible for the very first time.
European countries did not offer anything comparable to the financial and land grants Lincoln offered the new railroad corporations. It took Russia nearly 40 more years to build its first transcontinental railroad. Lincoln gave the United States a 40-year head start on Russia.
Lincoln believed in industry over agriculture. He also believed in the primacy of manufacturing over the mining and basic commodities sectors in order to strengthen the future economy of America. He encouraged technological innovation, invention and the practical application of science to business and war in every way he could.
In his four short years as president (Lincoln was elected twice but was assassinated at the beginning of his second term), he transformed the Union from a huge agricultural "empire of liberty," half dependent on slave labor, into the world's industrial giant.
We think of Lincoln as a saintly hero — a gentle beloved male version of Mother Teresa in the White House. This vision of Lincoln is a relatively modern one, owing a great deal to Carl Sandburg. But Sandburg was a terrible historian and a shameless hagiographer. He distorted the real life of a great American leader to produce a childish caricature of reality.
Hailing from Chicago, Sandburg found his true calling as a highly touted biographer of Lincoln. He painted Lincoln as a suffering saint of the prairie. Subsequently, it has been difficult for ordinary Americans to think of the Great Liberal Emancipator in any other way.
Sandburg's achievement was extraordinary. Even after 80 years, the image he painted of Lincoln continues to define him for the American public. His clichés still blot out the lessons to be learned from the continuing flood of genuinely first-class scholarship about Lincoln's life.
Steven Spielberg's Oscar-nominated movie does much to provide a far more realistic and nuanced portrait of Lincoln, the wily politician, the caring man — and the human being riddled by doubt.
But even with that major refinement in our understanding of the 16th President of the United States, the real Lincoln still continues to hide in plain sight from the American people. This development would have given him wry satisfaction.
The real Lincoln was no Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. He suffered, but not as a servant. He was not religious in any conventional sense.
Lincoln's skepticism was well known in his home community in Springfield, Illinois. In 1846, he turned up at one Sunday morning church meeting to campaign for support in his first election to Congress (and the only one he ever won.) The clergyman holding the meeting was fulminating on the horrors of the fires of Hell that awaited unbelievers.
Seeing Lincoln, whose skepticism he knew well, the minister asked, "And where do you think you're going, Mr. Lincoln?" "I don't know where you're going, Reverend," Lincoln replied. "But I'm going to Congress."
Lincoln was passionate in his genuine abhorrence of chattel slavery, but he was no pacifist. He wasn't gentle in his conduct of the national affairs of the United States. He also wasn't into forgiveness of those who crossed him or failed him. Although he issued many pardons, he also approved military executions of deserters from the Union Army.
There was no disagreement between Lincoln and the Radical Republicans in Congress over the need to impose a harsh peace over the conquered South in 1865. His proposed peace behind his soft words was as harsh as theirs.
"Blood and Iron"
We all know who Abraham Lincoln was. But what was his significance to American history?
What was Abraham Lincoln? He was America's Bismarck. Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of Prussia, Lincoln's exact contemporary, won the respect and fear of the world because he fought and won three wars to create the new German Empire.
He boasted that he would unify Germany and impose his will on it by "blood and iron." And he did.
Lincoln reunited America just as Bismarck united Germany. But Lincoln's achievement was on an incomparably greater, far more terrible scale. More than three times the number of soldiers was killed in the U.S. Civil War than in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War.
Total fatalities in the war between Prussia and France were almost 185,000. Some 650,000 soldiers died in the Civil War. Lincoln also built up America as a far greater industrialized nation than Germany became in Europe.
Lincoln had a vision of a better America that would emerge from the war. Had he lived, Lincoln would have rejoiced in the rise of American industry. If Lincoln had lived to retire from the presidency in 1869, he might have sat on the boards of Union Pacific, Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel.
To prove this, we only have to look at what Lincoln did for a living.
Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer. But he was no simple, poor, champion of the "Forgotten Man," the way legendary movie director John Ford portrayed him in "Young Mr. Lincoln" in 1939. That movie, starring Henry Fonda as the young Abe, is still watched today. It embraced Carl Sandburg's picture of Lincoln.
The real Abraham Lincoln — that is, the real unknown Lincoln — was a very different kind of man. He was a respected appeals lawyer, a lawyer for the railroad and other enterprises, and became wealthy doing so.
But in 1854, he chose to speak out against the extension of slavery through the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Though unsuccessful in his subsequent bid for a U.S. Senate seat, he had acquired the taste for politics. He went on to change the nation — socially, politically and economically.
Super, daar had ik nog niks van meegekregenquote:Op zaterdag 19 januari 2013 12:12 schreef zakjapannertje het volgende:
in Utrecht zijn ze iets soortgelijks aan het ontwikkelen met enkele bekende bouwwerken zoals de Dom http://www.bouwdomtoren.nl (vooralsnog wordt dat alleen in boekvorm uitgebracht)
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |