The workhouse was a place which offered housing and work to people who did not have any. They began in England and Wales during the 17th century. The first use of the word workhouse was in a report by the mayor of Abingdon in 1631 on the building of a workhouse in the town.

The beginnings of the workhouse go back to the Poor Law Act of 1388. This was designed to help solve a shortage of workers after the Black Death. It made it difficult for them to move about the country, and stopped them from looking for higher paid work somewhere else. This led to the state being responsible for the welfare of the poor. After the Napoleonic Wars there was a lot of unemployment. There was also unemployment caused by machines taking over work from farm workers. In the 1830s' there was also a series of bad harvests. These things put too much pressure on the existing ways of looking after poor people.

New laws were passed, the New Poor Law of 1834, to try to deal with the problem. People would only be given help if they went into the workhouse to live. Some places hoped to make a profit from the workhouse by using the free labor of the people. Most did not have skills to get normal jobs, so workhouse jobs included breaking rocks into small stones, breaking bones to make fertilizer, or pulling apart old rope to reuse the fibre. This old rope, known as oakum, was used to pack joints in ship building to keep them watertight. A metal spike was used to unpick the rope,, and the nickname for the workhouse was the spike.

Life in a workhouse was not meant to be easy. It was made hard so only the very poor with no hope of finding work would go there for help. Workhouse inmates had no rights in the workhouse and were subjected to strict rules and harsh punishments. However the workhouse did provide free medical care and education for the children. This sort of help was not available to poor people outside the workhouse system.  Charles Dickens  book Oliver Twist famously includes a chapter set in a workhouse. The reform increased non-violent property crimes, mostly poaching, by 17% This was worst when there was no work in farming.

Towards the end of the 1800s, the workhouses became filled with the old and sick, rather than unemployed poor people. In 1929 the laws were changed and the workhouses became hospitals. Some workhouses were renamed Public Assistance Institutions. These finally disappeared when the National Assistance act of 1948 was passed.

References

Public services in the United Kingdom
History of the United Kingdom
Poverty
Social security in the United Kingdom
Social care

Workhouse


Brian Lee Pittman (born October 21, 1980) is an American musician most notable as the former bassist for the Christian rock band Relient K, of which he was a founding member. He has also played bass for the Christian metal band Inhale Exhale, and owns a landscaping company called Aura Concrete & Landscaping. Pittman married on August 30, 2008 and currently resides in Canal Fulton, Ohio.

Bands

Relient K
Pittman played bass for Relient K from the band's beginning in 1998 until Bleach's farewell show on August 29, 2004. He contributed to 13 Relient K projects, including five full-length albums, four EPs, a two-track single, and two Christmas albums. The last album he contributed to was Mmhmm (the band's fourth album), along with longtime bandmates Matt Thiessen, Matt Hoopes, and Dave Douglas. Some people think the song "For the Band", which is found on Relient K's Employee of the Month EP, was written about his leaving, but that is unlikely, as that song was recorded two years before his departure. Though he left the band in August 2004, he returned to play with the band during their CD release show for Mmhmm on November 1, 2004 at the Newport Music Hall in Columbus, Ohio.

Inhale Exhale
Shortly after leaving Relient K, Pittman joined the band Inhale Exhale. They released their first album on November 21, 2006, entitled The Lost. The Sick. The Sacred. Pittman reportedly claimed after leaving Relient K that he wanted to play a different genre of Christian music, and said before that he grew up preferring metal music more. Inhale Exhale's style is much heavier than Relient K's.

Discography
Pittman has been on a combined fourteen releases with Relient K and Inhale Exhale. He has also appeared in three music videos for Relient K, and two videos with Inhale Exhale.
He appears in Relient K's second Christmas album as bass on tracks 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16.

With Relient K
All Work and No Play (1998)
2000 A.D.D. (2000)
Relient K (album) (2000)
"My Girlfriend" music video (2000)
The Creepy EP (2001)
The Anatomy of the Tongue in Cheek (2001)
"Pressing On" music video (2001)
"The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything" (2002)
Employee of the Month EP (2002)
Two Lefts Don't Make a Right...but Three Do (2003)
"Chap Stick, Chapped Lips, and Things Like Chemistry" music video (2003)
The Vinyl Countdown (2003)
Deck the Halls, Bruise Your Hand (2003)
Mmhmm (2004)
Let It Snow Baby... Let It Reindeer (2007) (on tracks recorded in 2003 or earlier)
The Bird and the Bee Sides (2008) (on tracks recorded in 2004 or earlier)

With Inhale Exhale
The Lost. The Sick. The Sacred. (2006)
"Redemption" music video (2006)
"A Call to the Faithful" music video (2007)

See also
Inhale Exhale
Relient K

References

Living people
1980 births
American performers of Christian music
Relient K members
Musicians from Canton, Ohio
Guitarists from Ohio
American male guitarists
American male bass guitarists
21st-century American bass guitarists

Brian Pittman


Chuck Norris facts is an Internet phenomenon with joke "facts" about martial artist and actor Chuck Norris. The "facts" are jokes about Norris' toughness, attitude, virility, "alpha-male status", and masculinity. They are given in a comically serious tone, for example:

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad Chuck Norris has never cried. Ever.

The "facts" usually say that Chuck Norris is a very angry, all-powerful, superbeing. Some of these "facts" have also turned into popular jokes.  Like most Internet phenomena, the Chuck Norris facts have spread around the world. They have been translated into many different languages as well as used as the basis for advertising and other Internet phenomena. The "facts" often refer to his use of roundhouse kick attacks to do almost anything, his beard, and his role in the action television series Walker, Texas Ranger.

Background
Chuck Norris facts were first seen on the Internet in early 2005. Conan O'Brien's Chuck Norris jokes on Late Night with Conan O'Brien have been seen as a cause for the fad.  These "facts" are similar to "Tall tales" such as those of Paul Bunyan.  Chuck Norris Facts started being used in the gaming community shortly after a Chuck Norris Fact generator was created for use with World of Warcraft in early 2006.

Chuck's response
Chuck Norris has talked about the Chuck Norris facts on his official website, chucknorris.com, with a statement. He was surprised and liked the attention. He said that some of the statements were indeed funny but he tries not to take any of them seriously. He hoped that the "facts" would get people to want to know the real facts about Chuck Norris found in his literary works.

Norris appeared in a 2007 commercial for Mountain Dew where he had his revenge on the two fictional webmasters of a site that showed Norris in a humorous way. This is a reference to the Chuck Norris facts meme.

In December, 2007, Norris sued when these statements were published in book form by Penguin in November 2007.

References

Other websites
Chuck Norris Facts.com
Over 8,000 Chuck Norris facts (with sounds)
More Chuck Norris facts
Chuck Norris' official response
A Washington Post article on Chuck Norris facts

Internet memes
Comedy

Chuck Norris facts


International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is a treaty of the United Nations for the rights of all migrant workers. It also protects their families. It was adopted in 18 December 1990. It went into force in 2003.

This Convention is made as a series of the international human rights law and at the "Preamble" of the Convention, they recall the conventions of the International Labour Organization about migrant workers and unfree labour. The aid of the Convention is to protect the rights of migrant workers who have not the nationality of the staying country, thus who can often be under the worse working condition or even the victims of human trafficking.

But as of December 2019, only 55 countries have ratified, that is admitted formally the Convention. Most of those countries are in North Africa and South America. No migrant-receiving State in Western Europe or North America has ratified the Convention. Other important receiving countries, such as Australia, Arab states of the Persian Gulf, India and South Africa have not ratified the Convention either.

But this Convention is recalled by the Preamble of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Related pages
Immigration
Migrant worker
International Labour Organization
International human rights law

Other websites
Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers (full text)

Migration laws
Human rights

Migrant Workers Convention


Bristol City Football Club is ane o twa fitbaw league clubs in Bristol, England, (the ither being arch rivals Bristol Rovers). They play at Ashton Gate, locatit in the sooth-wast o the Ceety. Keith Millen is currently the manager o the club. They wur promotit tae the Fitbaa League Championship in the 2006–07 saison efter finishin seicont in League One but failed tae make a seicont consecutive promotion tae the Premier League efter they wur defeatit bi Hull City in the Championship Play-Offs.

Bristol Ceety wan the Welsh Cup – despite being an Inglis team – in 1934. In 1907 they finished runners-up in Fitbaa League Division Ane, which is their hichtest-ever final position.

In 1982, Bristol Ceety became the first Inglis team tae suffer three consecutive relegations but bi 1990 they wur back in the Seicont Division. Anither relegation followed in 1995 joinin wi Swindon Toun, when Ceety finished seicont frae bottom in the new Seicont Division, an a return tae that division three years later lasted juist ane saison. Maist o their seasons atween 1999 an 2006 wur spent challengin for promotion in the upper half o the division.

The club's nickname is "The Robins", an a robin featured on the club's badge frae 1976 tae 1994. Offeecial club merchandise, includin replica kits, still haes a label showin a robin. An attempt bi the club to alter the club's badge wis abandoned efter the club wis criticized fiercely bi fans.

Honours
Fitbaa League Honours

 The Fitbaa League (Premier League) runners-up: 1906–07
 Seicont Division (Fitbaa League Championship) champions: 1905–06, runners-up: 1975–76
 Third Division Sooth (Fitbaa League Ane) champions: 1922–23, 1926–27, 1954–55
 Third Division (Football League Ane) runners-up: 1964-65, 1989-90
 Fitbaa League Ane runners-up: 1997-98, 2006–07
 FA Cup finalists: 1909
 League Cup semi-finalists: 1970-71, 1988-89
 Fitbaa League Trophy winners: 1985–86, 2002–03, finalists: 1986–87, 1999-00

Ither Honours

 Welsh Cup winners: 1933–34
 Anglo-Scots Cup winners: 1977–78

Fitbaw clubs in Ingland
English Football League clubs
EFL Championship clubs
Fitbaw clubs in Bristol
Association fitbaw clubs established in 1897
Southern Football League clubs
Football League Trophy winners
1897 establishments in Ingland

Bristol City F.C.


William Starling Poole (born July 24, 1981) is a former American football defensive back. He was drafted by the Miami Dolphins in the fourth round of the 2004 NFL Draft. He played college football at Southern California.

Poole was also a member of the Kansas City Chiefs, Toronto Argonauts, Hamilton Tiger-Cats, Sacramento Mountain Lions and San Antonio Talons.

Early years
Poole was a top high school player at Christ The King Regional High School in New York City and a Parade All-American his junior year. He also competed on their nationally ranked basketball team.

College career
He is a University of Southern California graduate whose senior team split the collegiate national championship with Louisiana State University.  He first went to Boston College.  Following that he went to Ventura College.  Best known for his standout performance against Michigan which included two sacks in the 2004 Rose Bowl (played on January 1) en route to a USC 28–14 victory.

Awards and honors
 Junior College Athletic Bureau All-American (2002)
 SuperPrep JUCO 100 (2002)
 Western State Conference Mountain Division Defensive MVP (2002)
 Ventura College Team MVP (2002)
 Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Week (November 5, 2003)
 First-team All-Pac-10 selection by CollegeFootballNews.com, ESPN.com and Rivals.com (2003)
 Second-team All-American by the AP and CollegeFootballNews.com
 Honorable mention Rivals.com All-American (2003)
 USC Co-Special Teams Player of the Year (2003)

Professional career

Miami Dolphins
He was drafted in the fourth round by the Miami Dolphins in 2004.  Plagued with knee injuries throughout his career, he played during a promising rookie season and was placed on IR during the 2005 and 2006 seasons then was waived by Miami on December 19, 2006. He tried out for the New Orleans Saints on the weekend of May 12–13, 2007.

First stint with Chiefs
Poole signed a two-year deal with the Kansas City Chiefs on July 27, 2007. However, he was released by the team on September 1 during final cuts.

First stint with Argonauts
On October 4, 2007, Poole was signed by the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian Football League and assigned to their practice roster.  He was later released by the team on October 10, 2007.

Second stint with Chiefs
On May 27, 2008, Poole was re-signed by the Chiefs. He was released on August 10.

Second stint with Argonauts
Less than a year after being signed to the Toronto Argonauts' practice squad, Poole re-joined the Argonauts on September 8, 2008.

Sacramento Mountain Lions
On May 25, 2011, Poole signed with the Sacramento Mountain Lions of the United Football League.

Personal life
Poole has a daughter, Kayla Poole.

References

External links
USC Trojans bio

1981 births
Living people
Sportspeople from Queens, New York
Players of American football from New York City
American football cornerbacks
American players of Canadian football
Canadian football defensive backs
Boston College Eagles football players
USC Trojans football players
Miami Dolphins players
Kansas City Chiefs players
Toronto Argonauts players
San Antonio Talons players
Sportspeople from West Virginia
Sportspeople from Beckley, West Virginia

Will Poole


Barry Switzer (born October 5, 1937 in Crossett, Arkansas, USA) was an American football coach. He coached both professional and college football for 32 years. Switzer is one of only three head coaches to win both a college football national championship and a Super Bowl. He has one of the highest winning percentages in the history of college football.

After high school, Switzer went to the University of Arkansas. He played football there from 1956 to 1960. After graduation, Switzer join the US Army for a short time. After the Army, he returned to the University of Arkansas to work as an assistant coach.

After the 1966 season, Switzer became an assistant coach at the University of Oklahoma. He became head coach there in 1973. During his first two years as head coach, Oklahoma did not lose any games and won the national championship two time. They won the championship a third time in 1985. Switzer left Oklahoma in 1989. His record there was 157 wins, 29 losses and 4 ties.

In 1994, Switzer became the coach for the Dallas Cowboys. He led them to a win in Super Bowl XXX during the 1995 season. Switzer retired from coaching after the following season.

In 2001, Switzer was elected into the College Football Hall of Fame. On September 9, 2007, he began working with the FOX television network on its NFL pre-game show.

References

1937 births
Living people
American football coaches
Sportspeople from Arkansas
National Football League coaches
College football coaches

Barry Switzer


Ghaziabad district is a largely suburban district of Uttar Pradesh state in northern India, within the National Capital Region. The town of Ghaziabad is the administrative headquarters of the district. This district is part of Uttar Pradesh's Meerut Division. It has become a major bedroom community (Commuter town) for Delhi.

History

Ghaziabad District was once part of Meerut District, but was split off forming the district with an area of 2550 km2 Later, Gautam Budh Nagar district was split off as well, reducing the district's size to 1933.3 km2. In Sept 2011, 2 tehsils were again split off to form Hapur district. The revised area is 1273 km2 and revised population is 3,323,241.

Geography

Ghaziabad district is bounded on the northwest by Baghpat District, on the north by Meerut district, on the east by Hapur district, on the southeast by Bulandshahr district, on the southwest by Gautam Buddha Nagar District, and on the west by Delhi state across the Yamuna River.

Population

According to the 2011 Census, it is the third most populous district of Uttar Pradesh (out of 75), after Prayagraj district and Moradabad.

According to the 2011 census of Ghaziabad district, it has a population of 4,661,452, roughly equal to the nation of Ireland or the US state of South Carolina. This gives it a ranking of 28th highest in India (out of a total of 640). The district has a population density of 3,967 inhabitants per square kilometre (10,270/sq mi). Its population growth rate over the decade 2001–2011 was 41.66%. Ghaziabad has a sex ratio of 878 females for every 1000 males, and a literacy rate of 85%.

At the 2011 census, this district had a population of 4,661,452 (3rd highest in UP), with 2,481,803 males and 2,179,649 females. It contributes 2.33% of the total population of UP. It has highest density of population in UP with 4060 persons per square km. It is second in population growth rate with 40.66%. The average literacy rate in 2011 was 85%, which is the highest in UP. This is revised to 3,323,241 after the split of Hapur district.

Reference

Districts of Uttar Pradesh

Ghaziabad district


The Süddeutsche Zeitung ("South German Newspaper") is the most-read nationwide quality-newspaper in Germany. It is published in Munich. Recently, they are known for leaking offshore bank accounts that led to the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers leak.

Newspaper

The Süddeutsche Zeitung is a liberal newspaper. The national edition features four sections: Politics, Culture, Economy and Sports. There are also regional editions for Munich and Bavaria featuring local news. There are 6 newspapers a week. It has the second most readers in Germany after the tabloid newspaper Bild-Zeitung. There are about 442,000 papers sold each day, reaching over 1.1 million readers daily.

History
The Süddeutsche Zeitung was published for the first time on October 6, 1945. It was the first newspaper in Bavaria to get a licence from the U.S. military government after World War II.

Supplements
SZ Magazin (Friday), a magazine-style supplement
Wochenende (Saturday), longer articles and short stories for the weekend
The New York Times (Monday), selected articles (English language).
The TV programme (Tuesday) and an event guide (Thursday) are only included in the Bavarian edition.

Other websites

Newspapers published in Germany
1945 establishments in Europe
1940s establishments in Germany
German-language newspapers

Süddeutsche Zeitung


Dolar perdagangan ialah duit syiling perdagangan yang dikeluarkan oleh berbagai-bagai negara.

Amerika Syarikat

The United States Trade Dollar is a silver dollar coin that was issued by the United States Mint and minted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Carson City, and San Francisco from 1873 to 1885. Business strikes ended in 1878.
The coin was designed by William Barber, the mint's chief engraver. More trade dollars were minted in San Francisco than Carson City and Philadelphia combined. San Francisco was closest both to the source of the silver as well as the ultimate destination of the coins, China. Many Trade Dollars have what are called "chop marks" on them. The Chinese merchants would stamp the coins as a way to check their authenticity and to add their advertising logo.

The United States Congress authorized the U.S. Mint to create a trade dollar to improve trade with the Orient, China in particular.  Prior to that, the Mexican peso had been the primary silver coin used in trading with China.  In fact, the eagle on the trade dollar's reverse looks quite similar to the peso's.   The coin was minted at 420 grains (27 g) of silver with a fineness of .900 (90 %), about 8 grains (520 mg) more than the domestic silver dollar of the time, and 4 more than the peso.  However, the peso was .903 silver.

Collectors are warned that recently a large number of U.S. trade dollars, of various quality have been made in China.  Purchasing from known dealers or buying sealed and certified coins may be necessary to avoid these fakes.

Jepun
The Japanese Trade Dollar was a dollar coin, issued from 1875 to 1877. It was minted of 27.22 grams of silver with a fineness of 900 (90 %). The Yen coin had 26.96 grams of silver at that time.

2,736,000 Japanese coins were minted, the vast majority in 1876-77.  Because of their high bullion value they were withdrawn from use and the majority were counterstamped with the character "gin" (Japanese for "silver").  The Osaka mint placed the mark on the left side of the reverse, the Tokyo mint on the right.  The coins were then released for use outside Japan.

United Kingdom

With the extension of British trading interests in the East, especially after the founding of Singapore in 1819 and Hong Kong in 1842, it became necessary to produce a special Dollar so as to remove the reliance of a British Colony upon the various foreign coins then in circulation. The Picture is a Trade Dollar from the reign of Victoria. It is a 1900 B mint.

China Trade, Silver Dollars were a direct result of the Opium Wars (1839-1843, 1856-1860), which began when China tried to stop Britain from selling opium to its citizens. The loser, China, had to open up a number of ports to British trade and residence, and cede Hong Kong to Britain. In the decades that followed, merchants and adventurers flocked to these areas, and international trade flourished. Foreign banks were established, and large silver coins from all over the world began arriving to pay for tea, silk, and Chinese porcelain to be shipped abroad. These .900 fine silver trade dollars were then circulated throughout China, where they were readily accepted as a medium of exchange. The British Trade Dollars, minted exclusively for use in the Far East, depict Britannia standing on shore, holding a trident in one hand and balancing a British shield in the other, with a merchant ship under full sail in the background. On the reverse is an arabesque design with the Chinese symbol for longevity in the center, and the denomination in two languages— Chinese and Jawi Malay.

The British Trade Dollar was minted from 1895 for Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements. But after the Straits dollar was introduced to the Straits Settlements in 1903, it became exclusively a Hong Kong coin, with the last being produced in 1935.  Those with the mint mark "B" were produced at the Bombay mint; others, marked "C", were struck in Calcutta.  The mint mark "C" can be found in the ground between the left foot of Britannia and the base of the shield, while the mint mark "B" is located in the centre prong of the trident. The 1921-B dollar was struck but never released for circulation, and only a limited number of 1934-B and 1935-B coins were released.  Certain dates are found with a new date being over-struck on another; these include 1897-B over 1896-B, 1900-B over 1894-B, 1901-B over 1900-B, 1909-B over 1908-B, 1904-B over 1898-B, 1903-B over 1902-B, 1908-B over 1903-B, 1904-B over 1903-B, 1929-B over 1901-B, 1908-B over 1907-B, and 1910-B over 1900-B. The British Trade Dollar was demonetized on August 1, 1937.

Rujukan
Coin-Newbies: The Trade Dollar by Michael E. Marotta
Collector USA: The Rise and Fall of the Trade Dollar by R.W. Julian
The Tulving Company: 1873-85 Trade Dollar Seated Liberty
Japanese Silver Trade Dollar

Pautan luar
US Trade Dollar by year and type.  Histories, photos, and more.
ANACS warns of counterfeit trade dollars.

 Mata wang usang moden

Dolar perdagangan


Cape Race is a point of land at the southeastern tip of the Avalon Peninsula, on the island of Newfoundland, Canada. Its name is thought to come from the original Portuguese name for this cape, "Raso", or "bare". The Cape appeared on early sixteenth century maps as Cape Raso, and may derive from a cape of the same name at the mouth of the Tagus River in Portugal.

Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador
Capes

Cape Race


The Cruithne or Cruthin wis historical fowk that dwalt in Ireland, in parteecular Ulster, in early medieval times.

Gaun by T. F. O'Rahilly's historical model, the Cruithne wis the descendants o the Priteni, that O'Rahilly argies wis the first Celtic group tae dwall in the Breetish Isles, an identifee's them as the Pechts o Scotland. They settelt in Breetain an Ireland atween 700 an 500 BC. They uised airn an spak a P-Celtic leid, cryin thirsels Priteni or Pritani, whit is aiblins the oreegin o the name "Breetain".

In Breetain thir Priteni wis absorbed bi later invaders an tint their cultural identity but in the faur north whaur they wis kent tae the Romans as Picti, or "pentit fowk," acause o their practice o decoratin their bouk wi pent or tattoos (a haunt that had dee'd amang ither Celtic tribes at the time). In Ireland an aw, the Priteni wis tae the maist pairt absorbed bi later settlers; but a puckle o them managed tae haud on tae a meisur o cultural, gin no poleetical, independence weel intae the Christian era. Bi thon time they wis identifee'd as Cruithne, a Q-Celtic cognate o Priteni.

Amang the Cruthnian tribes that survived wis the Loíges an Fothairt in Leinster. The name o the seicont o thir tribes - modrenised as Laois - haes been revived an gien tae ane o the coonties o Leinster (syne kent as Queen's Coonty).

Cruithne is the name o the Pechts in Scots Gaelic.

Some fowk jalouses that the Scots wird creenie cam fae this, bein uised as a contemptous wird for a race o stumpy, daurk fowk that bade in the Rhinns o Gallowa. Fae thon it haes been applee'd tae fowk fae Ireland. A mair liklier etymology is that its juist a form o the wird crine meanin skrinkit. Anither wird that haes been uised for daurk haired "Irish" fowk is Gossocks. Some threaps this comes fae Welsh gwasog, a kynd o servand. That isna likely acause that means the wird maun hae survived at least nine centuries throu the Gaelic an Scots-speakin times o Gallowa.

Auncient Erse fowks
Gaelic-Erse naitions an dynasties

Cruithne


Gary Talpas is an American art director and photographer. Talpas worked as designer and art director for Nine Inch Nails on Pretty Hate Machine, "Head Like A Hole", The Downward Spiral and Further Down the Spiral. He also played keyboards for several early shows during the Pretty Hate Machine tour after Chris Vrenna switched to drums.

Talpas  would later develop artwork for Smells Like Children for Marilyn Manson.

References

Living people
Year of birth missing (living people)
Nine Inch Nails
American art directors
American photographers
Logo designers

Gary Talpas


Salvador Minuchin (October 13, 1921 – October 30, 2017) was a family therapist born and raised in San Salvador, Entre Ríos, Argentina. He developed structural family therapy, which addresses problems within a family by charting the relationships between family members, or between subsets of family (Minuchin, 1974). These charts represent power dynamics as well as the boundaries between different subsystems. The therapist tries to disrupt dysfunctional relationships within the family, and cause them to settle back into a healthier pattern.

Career
Salvador Minuchin served as a physician in the Israeli army after obtaining his degree in medicine. Once his service was finished, he traveled to New York City to be trained in child psychiatry with Nathan Ackerman. When his training with Ackerman was complete, Minuchin returned to Israel to assist displaced children as a child psychiatrist (Nichols, 2010). In 1954 he returned to the United States to be trained in psychoanalysis at the William Alanson White Institute. After completing his psychoanalytic training, Minuchin worked as a child psychiatrist at the Wiltwyck School for delinquent boys, where he decided that treating whole families would be worthwhile.

While he held his position at the Wiltwyck School, Minuchin developed a form of family therapy with his co-workers. Their method involved Minuchin or another psychiatrist performing a therapy session with a family while the other psychiatrists viewed the session through a one-way mirror (Nichols, 2010). Observing one another work allowed the therapists to learn techniques easily and led Minuchin to develop structural family therapy. In 1962, once Minuchin had generated his theoretical formulations for family structure, he traveled to Palo Alto to work with Jay Haley. Minuchin's work at the Wiltwyck School led to his first book, Families of the Slums (1967), which outlined his theoretical model of family therapy.

Minuchin supervised both Esther Perel and Virginia Goldner.

In 1965 Minuchin became the director of the Child Guidance Clinic in Philadelphia. He stepped down from this position in 1976 to become the head of training at the center until 1981, when he left Philadelphia to practice and teach child psychiatry in New York (Nichols, 2010). In 1996, he moved to Boston and retired from his career. Minuchin died on October 30, 2017,  in Boca Raton, Florida.

Friendship with Jay Haley

One of the developments that came out of Minuchin's work with Jay Haley was the collaborative friendship between the two professionals. Minuchin once wrote of Haley as his most important teacher, a man who was "forever pushing the envelope, testing the limits of new ideas" to challenge Minuchin and himself. Minuchin characterizes their relationship as similar to the friendship between Spock and Captain Kirk from the television show Star Trek in that Jay Haley was highly intellectual, while Minuchin was extremely pragmatic (Minuchin, 2007).

Theoretical contributions to family therapy

Salvador Minuchin made several important contributions to the field of family therapy during his career, the most important of which was the development of structural family therapy (Nichols, 2010). When Minuchin first began to work as a family therapist, he wrote about enmeshed and disengaged families, which became an important component of structural family therapy. Minuchin also suggested that most families try to solve their problems through first-order changes (changes of single behaviors) and that in order for a family's structure to significantly change and become healthy again, second-order changes (alterations of the family's rules) are necessary. These concepts informed his conception of structural family therapy and influenced other branches of family psychology.

Psychosomatic model for treatment of anorexia nervosa

In 1978 Minuchin helped write Psychosomatic Families: Anorexia Nervosa in Context, which details a clinical model for the causes and treatment of anorexia nervosa based on an integration of medical research and previously successful psychological interventions (Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978). The psychosomatic model of anorexia nervosa specifically combines elements of psychodynamic and behavioral theory to create a comprehensive account of the origins of anorexia nervosa in a family system. According to the book, optimal treatment of anorexia nervosa involves the application of behavioral and structural family therapy methods. The book also features four case studies of families whose members have suffered from anorexia nervosa and how the model's treatment was successfully applied to their situation.

Criticisms of postmodern therapy

In an editorial in The Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Minuchin (1998) expressed concerns about postmodern family therapy. He argued that both narrative therapy and solution-focused therapy bring unique and useful methods to the practice of family therapy, such as emphasizing alternative personal narratives to cope with problems. However, he stated that postmodern therapies lost the information that family dialogues produced, the spontaneity of therapist-directed enactments, the focus on the therapist as a positive and helpful, that the therapist can make a family feel more connected, and the acknowledgement that the therapist must function with personal bias. In other words, Minuchin felt that postmodern therapy displaced the family and created a paradigm for therapy that was not representative of the psychological experience of a family.

In a follow-up to his initial criticisms, Minuchin (1999) also stated that he felt the focus of postmodern therapy was too broad to be effectively applied to the specific problems of a family unit. He suggests that family therapy should be used to alleviate stress of pain within a family, not to remove the influence of overarching cultural narratives.

Minuchin Center for the Family
When Minuchin moved to New York in 1981, he established the Family Studies Institute, where he could teach family therapists and interface directly with the foster care system through consultation services (Nichols, 2010). Renamed the Minuchin Center for the Family after Minuchin's retirement in 1995, it is dedicated to teaching the concepts and techniques of structural family therapy, and to consulting with organizations that work with families challenged by poverty, racism, and discrimination due to gender or sexual orientation.

Selected works

Books
 with Braulio Montalvo; Bernard G. Guerney, Jr.; Bernice L. Rosman,; Florence Schumer, Families of the Slums. New York: Basic Books, 1967.
 The Disorganized and Disadvantaged Family: Structure and Process (1967)
 Psychoanalytic Therapies and the Low Socioeconomic Population (1968)
 Families and Family Therapy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1974.
 with B. Rosman, B. & L. Baker. Psychosomatic Families: Anorexia Nervosa in Context. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978.
 with H. C. Fishman. Family Therapy Techniques. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2004.
 with Michael P. Nichols; 'Family Healing Strategies for Hope and Understanding' New York, NY: The Free Press, 1998.

Articles
 "Where is the family in narrative family therapy?" The Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, vol. 24, 397–403. (1998)
 "Retelling, reimagining, and re-searching: A continuing conversation". The Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, vol. 25, 9–14. (1999)
 "Jay Haley: My Teacher". Family Process, vol. 46, 413–414. (2007)

References

External links
 The Minuchin Center
 The Philadelphia Child and Family Therapy Training Center

1921 births
2017 deaths
Argentine Jews
Argentine people of Russian-Jewish descent
Argentine expatriates in Israel
Argentine emigrants to the United States
Psychotherapists
Family therapists
People from Entre Ríos Province

Salvador Minuchin


Virginity means a state of purity or inexperience. Traditionally a virgin is a person that has not had sexual intercourse. Virginity has different meanings and importance in different religions and cultures.

Virgin women do not need to have an unbroken hymen. A hymen is a human tissue that partially blocks the opening of the vagina about two inches deep. When a man inserts his penis or other object(s) are inserted into the vagina, it can tear or break the hymen which may result in bleeding. This blood from the hymen is important in many cultures, as it is a sign that the woman is a virgin; even though it is not necessary for the hymen to be broken to signify a woman's lack of virginity. The hymen can also, however, be worn away naturally by riding a horse, playing sports, or other recreational activities; it can also heal over time just like torn human tissue can.

It is possible for a virgin to have a sexually transmitted disease, which was acquired by some other means: such as drug use, blood or plasma transfusions, close skin contact in the pubic area with infected people, oral sex, and other means.

In several polytheistic religions (religions with many gods), priestesses of certain gods have to be virgins, one notable exception is the Sumerian goddess Fauk'Stek, who was believed to have impregnated the sun god Loki and to have 'taught the Earth and its sons the glory of sacrifice'. In many cultures it is said that women should be virgins until marriage. In some cultures, women who are not virgins until marriage are ostracized or murdered.

References

Related pages
Chastity

Human sexuality

Virginity


The Chimera of Arezzo is regarded as the best example of ancient Etruscan art. The British art historian David Ekserdjian described the sculpture as "one of the most arresting of all animal sculptures and the supreme masterpiece of Etruscan bronze-casting".  Made entirely of bronze and measuring 78.5 cm high with a length of 129 cm, it was found alongside a small collection of other bronze statues in Arezzo, an ancient Etruscan and Roman city in Tuscany. The statue was originally part of a larger sculptural group representing a fight between a Chimera and the Greek hero Bellerophon. This sculpture is likely to have been created as a votive offering to the Etruscan god Tinia.

History
According to Greek mythology the Chimera or "she-goat" was a monstrous, fire-breathing hybrid creature of Lycia in Asia Minor, created by the binding of multiple animal parts to create a singular unnatural creature. As the offspring of Typhon and Echidna, the Chimera ravaged the lands of Lycia at a disastrous pace. Distressed by the destruction of his lands, the king of Lycia, Iobates, ordered a young warrior named Bellerophon to slay the dreaded Chimera, also as a favor to a neighboring king, Proetus. Proetus wanted Bellerophon dead because his wife accused him of ravishing her, and he assumed that the warrior would perish in the attempt to kill the beast. Bellerophon set out on his winged horse, Pegasus, and emerged victorious from his battle, eventually winning not only the hand of Iobates' daughter but also his kingdom. It is this story that led art historians to believe that the Chimera of Arezzo was originally part of a group sculpture that included Bellerophon and Pegasus. Votive offerings for the gods often depicted mythological stories. A round hole on the left rump of the Chimera might suggest a spot where Bellerophon may have struck the beast with a now-missing spear. The first known literary reference was in Homer's Iliad, and the epic poetry of Hesiod in the 8th century BCE also mentions the Chimera.

In response to questions of the statue's true meaning, Vasari wrote in his Reasonings Over the Inventions He Painted in Florence in the Palace of Their Serene Highnesses:Yes, sir, because there are the medals of the Duke my lord who came from Rome with a goat's head stuck in the neck of this lion, who as he sees VE, also has the serpent's belly, and we found the queue that was broken between those bronze fragments with many metal figurines that you've seen all, and the wounds that she has touched on show it, and yet the pain that is known in the readiness of the head of this animal ...The tail was not restored until 1785 when the Pistoiese sculptor Francesco Carradori (or his teacher, Innocenzo Spinazzi) fashioned a replacement, incorrectly positioning the serpent to bite the goat's horn. It is much more likely that the snake had to strike out against Bellerophon instead, since biting the head of the goat meant it was biting itself. Inscribed on its right foreleg is an inscription in the ancient Etruscan language. It has been variously deciphered, but most recently it is thought to read TINSCVIL, meaning: "Offering belonging to Tinia", indicating that the bronze was a votive object dedicated to the supreme Etruscan god of day, Tin or Tinia. The original statue is estimated to have been created around 400 BCE. In 1718, the sculpture was transported to the Uffizi Gallery and later, along with the remaining collection Cosimo I had originally seized, taken to the Palazzo della Crocetta. Court intellectuals of the time considered the Chimera of Arezzo to be a symbol of the Medici domination of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Its permanent residence is in the National Archaeological Museum in Florence, from which it was placed on brief loan to the Getty Villa for an exhibition in 2010.

The sculpture was probably commissioned by an aristocratic clan or a prosperous community and erected in a religious sanctuary near the ancient Etruscan town of Arezzo, about 50 miles southeast of Florence. The Chimera was one of a hoard of bronzes that had been carefully buried for safety sometime in classical antiquity. A bronze replica now stands near the spot of its original discovery.

The Etruscans
The  Etruscan civilization was a wealthy civilization in ancient Italy with roots in the ancient region of Etruria, which existed during the early 8th–6th century BCE and extended over what is now a part of modern Tuscany, western Umbria, and northern Lazio. The region became a part of the Roman Republic after the Roman–Etruscan Wars.

Heavily influenced by Ancient Greek culture, Etruscan art is characterized by the use of terracotta, metalworking—especially in bronze—as well as jewelry and engraved gems. Metal and bronze trinkets from the Mediterranean rapidly began to appear around Etruria. It is not clear to historians exactly when trading with the Eastern Mediterranean began; however, it is clear that both Phoenicians and Greeks must have been interested in the metal ores of Etruria, causing a rise in popularity of the art trade in these regions. The Etruscans were well known for their art throughout the Orientalizing Period (700–600 BCE), the Archaic Period (600–480 BCE), and the Hellenistic Period (2nd to 1st century BCE).

The discovery
Discovered on November 15, 1553, by construction workers near the San Lorentino gate in Arezzo (ancient Arretium), the sculpture was quickly claimed for the collection of the Medici Grand Duke of Tuscany, Cosimo I, who placed it publicly in the Palazzo Vecchio in the hall of Leo X. Cosimo also placed the smaller bronzes from the trove in his own studiolo at Palazzo Pitti, where "the Duke took great pleasure in cleaning them by himself, with some goldsmith's tools", as Benvenuto Cellini reported in his autobiography. On discovery, the statue was missing the snake and its left front and rear paws. Due to its fragmented state upon discovery, the statue was originally regarded as a lion. The Italian painter Giorgio Vasari tracked down the statue motif by studying Ancient Greek and Roman coins, such as a silver stater featuring an image of the Chimera, thus accurately identifying it. Eventually, it was officially identified as being a part of a larger piece illustrating a fight between the Chimera and the Greek hero Bellerophon. The sculpture was found among other small pieces that served as votive offerings to the God Tinia. This sculpture may also have served as an Etruscan religious dedication. After discovery, it began its residence in Florence, where it was moved to the Uffizi Palace in 1718. Since 1870, the Chimera of Arezzo has made its home at the National Archaeological Museum in Florence. As the sculpture made its way through the Florence museums, it increasingly attracted the attention of both artists and historians.

Iconography
Typical iconography of the Chimera myth depicts the warrior Bellerophon as he confronts the Chimera, or rides atop or alongside it. This iconography began to appear upon Greek vessels in 600 BCE. The Chimera of Arezzo presents a very detailed and complex composition that most likely was meant for display and viewing in the round. The Chimera is clearly expressing pain throughout its body. Its form is contorted, its face and mouth open in outrage as it is struck by Bellerophon. Similar to Hellenistic sculpture, the Chimera's form and body language express movement as well as the clear tension and power of the beast's musculature and evoke in the viewer a feeling of deep emotional pain and interest in the contemplation of that movement.
Clearly influenced by Mediterranean myth culture, this bronze work is evidence of the mastery that Etruscan sculptors had not only over the medium but of mythological lore. The art historian A. Maggiani gives details of a clear Italiote context by pointing out iconographic comparisons from sites in Magna Graecia such as Metaponto and Kaulonia. (Italiote refers to a pre–Roman Empire Greek-speaking population in southern Italy; Magna Graecia refers to the Greek colonies which were established in southern Italy from the 8th century BCE onwards.) With the Italiote context in mind, these trends are a clear indication of the increasing popularity of Attic (from Attica) or Athens-inspired architecture and sculpture. Ancient Athenians regarded themselves among the highest of society. Their art, religion, and culture was seen as the epitome of Greek achievement. While the ancient Athenians had long since perished by this time, their work and way of life were still regarded with great fascination and there was a desire to emulate it. Historians have generally come to a consensus that the Chimera of Arezzo was produced by Italiote craftsmen in the last decades of the fifth century BCE or in the beginning of the fourth century BCE. The fact that this sculpture was a votive offering to Tinia is a reminder of the wealth and sophistication of Etruscan elites.

Methods and materials
In the 3rd millennium BCE ancient foundry workers discovered by trial and error that bronze had distinct advantages over pure copper for making artistic statuary. Bronze stays liquid longer when filling a mold due to its lower melting point. Bronze is a superior metal to copper for sculpture casting because of its higher tensile strength. The island of Cyprus supplied most of the bronze used for artistic purposes throughout the ancient Mediterranean region.

The earliest forms of Greek bronze sculptures were simple, hand-worked sheets of bronze known as sphyrelaton (literally, "hammer-driven"). Like modern clay sculpture, these metal sheets could be embellished by hammering the metal over various wooden shapes made with textures that created a desired look or depth. This was later adapted to become the technique known today as tracing. By the late Archaic period (c. 500–480 BCE) sphyrelaton lost popularity as lost-wax casting became the primary means of producing bronze sculpture. Lost-wax casting of bronze was achieved in three different ways, each with its own desired effects. The first and earliest method was solid casting, which required a model of the sculpture to be fashioned in solid wax and then carved. The second method was hollow lost-wax casting, which was created by a direct process. Finally, the third was hollow lost-wax casting by an indirect process. The model is packed in clay, and then heated in what today would be similar to a kiln to remove the wax and harden the clay. Then, the mold is inverted and metal poured inside it to create a cast. When cooled, the bronze-smith cracks open the clay model to reveal a solid bronze replica.

For smaller details, sculptors often made eyes out of glass and painted on body hair, clothing details, and skin color. Lost in antiquity, most historical knowledge of how certain bronze statues would have looked comes from studying surviving Roman marble copies.

Gallery

Exhibitions
 September 15, 2012 – December 9, 2012 at the Royal Academy of Arts "Bronze"   July 16, 2009 – February 8, 2010 at the Getty Villa

See also
Capitoline Wolf, a bronze long thought to be of 4th-century BCE Etruscan origin, but possibly medieval.

References

Ugo Bardi, 1997. "The Chimaera of Arezzo"

Animal sculptures
Etruscan sculptures
Etruscan mythology
Treasure troves in Italy
National Archaeological Museum, Florence
Archaeological discoveries in Italy
5th-century BC sculptures

Chimera of Arezzo


Applause is the sound made by an audience who are clapping their hands (applauding) to thank someone for a performance.  People at a concert usually applaud when the performers come onto the stage.  This is a way of welcoming them.  At the end of a performance people applaud again to thank the performers.

People may applaud after someone makes a speech or at a sporting match.  They will applaud after a play in the theatre or at the end of an opera.  The length of applause (how long they applaud for) may depend on how much they liked the performance.  If they liked it very much they may also shout "BRAVO!".  When an audience applauds with really wild excitement it is called an "ovation".  Very occasionally (in English-speaking cultures) an audience might all stand up as well.  This is called a "standing ovation".

Related pages
Booing
Bowing
Claque
Encore

References

Theater
Non-verbal communication

Applause


John Preston Neale (1780–1847) was an English architectural and landscape draughtsman.  Much of his work was drawn, although he produced the occasional watercolour or oil painting. His drawings were used on a regular basis by engravers. A major work, the Views of the seats, Mansions, Castles, etc. of Noblemen and Gentlemen in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland was published in 6 volumes between 1819-23.

Biography
Neale's earliest works were drawings of insects. While in search of specimens in Hornsey Wood in the spring of 1796, Neale met John Varley the water-colour painter. Together they projected a work to be entitled The Picturesque Cabinet of Nature, for which Varley was to make the landscape drawings, and Neale was to etch and colour the plates. No. 1 was published on 1 September 1796, but no more appeared.

Neale was a clerk in the General Post Office, but eventually resigned his appointment to devote his time to art. Neale died at Tattingstone, near Ipswich, aged 67, on 14 November 1847.

Works

In 1797 Neale exhibited at the Royal Academy two drawings of insects, and sent others in 1799, 1801, and 1803. In 1804 he sent to the Royal Academy a drawing of the Custom House, Dover, and continued to exhibit topographical drawings and landscapes until 1844. He contributed also to the exhibitions of the Society of Painters in Oil and Water Colours in 1817 and 1818, and from time to time to those of the British Institution and of the Society of British Artists.

Some of his works were in oil-colours; but he is best known for his architectural drawings, which are executed in pen and tinted with water-colours. In 1816 he began the publication of the History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of St Peter, Westminster which was completed in 1823, in two quarto volumes, with descriptive text by Edward Wedlake Brayley. He next began, in 1818, his Views of the Seats of Noblemen and Gentlemen in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, of which the first series, in six volumes, was completed in 1824. The second series, in five volumes, was published between 1824 and 1829, and the entire work comprised 732 plates.

He also in 1824–5 undertook, in collaboration with John Le Keux, the engraver, the publication of Views of the most interesting Collegiate and Parochial Churches in Great Britain, but the work was discontinued after the issue of the second volume. Besides these works he published Six Views of Blenheim, Oxfordshire, (1823); Graphical Illustrations of Fonthill Abbey, (1824); and An Account of the Deep-Dene in Surrey, the seat of Thomas Hope, Esq., (1826). Many other works contain his pen and pencil illustrations.

References

External links

1780 births
1847 deaths
19th-century English artists
British mixed media artists
English artists

John Preston Neale


Air warfare must comply with laws and customs of war, including international humanitarian law by protecting the victims of the conflict and refraining from attacks on protected persons.

These restraints on aerial warfare are covered by the general laws of war, because unlike war on land and at sea—which are specifically covered by rules such as the 1907 Hague Convention and Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, which contain pertinent restrictions, prohibitions and guidelines—there are no treaties specific to aerial warfare.

To be legal, aerial operations must comply with the principles of humanitarian law: military necessity, distinction, and proportionality: An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

International law up to 1945
Before and during World War II (1939–1945), international law relating to aerial bombardment rested on the treaties of 1864, 1899, and 1907, which constituted the definition of most of the laws of war at that time – which, despite repeated diplomatic attempts, was not updated in the immediate run-up to World War II. The most relevant of these treaties is the Hague Convention of 1907 because it was the last treaty ratified before 1939 which specified the laws of war regarding the use of bombardment. In the Hague Convention of 1907, two treaties have a direct bearing on the issue of bombardment. These are "Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); 18 October 1907" and "Laws of War: Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Hague IX); 18 October 1907". It is significant that there is a different treaty which should be invoked for bombardment of land by land (Hague IV) and of land by sea (Hague IX). Hague IV, which reaffirmed and updated Hague II (1899), contains the following clauses:

Although the 1907 Hague Conventions IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land and IX – Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War prohibited the bombardment of undefended places, there was no international prohibition against indiscriminate bombardment of non-combatants in defended places, a shortcoming in the rules that was greatly exacerbated by aerial bombardment.

The attendees of the Second Hague Conference in 1907 did adopt a "Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons" on 18 October 1907. It stated: "The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature."
The foreshadowed "Third Peace Conference" never took place, and the Declaration remains in force. The United Kingdom and the United States ratified the Declaration.

With the rise of aerial warfare, non-combatants became extremely vulnerable and inevitably became
collateral targets in such warfare – potentially on a much larger scale than previously.

World War I (1914-1918) saw the first use of strategic bombing when German Zeppelins and aircraft indiscriminately dropped bombs on cities in Britain and France. These nations, fighting against Germany and its allies in the war, retaliated with their own air-raids (see Strategic bombing during World War I). A few years after World War I, a draft convention was proposed in 1923: The Hague Rules of Air Warfare.<ref name="HagueAir">The Hague Rules of Air Warfare, 1922–12 to 1923–02, this convention was never adopted'''.</ref> The draft contained a number of articles which would have directly affected how militaries used aerial bombardment and defended against it: articles 18, 22 and 24. The law was, however, never adopted in legally binding form as all major powers criticized it as being unrealistic.

The Greco-German arbitration tribunal of 1927–1930 arguably established the subordination of the law of air warfare to the law of ground warfare. It found that the 1907 Hague Convention on "The Laws and Customs of War on Land" applied to the German attacks in Greece during World War I: This concerned both Article 25 and Article 26.

Jefferson Reynolds in an article in The Air Force Law Review argues that "if international law is not enforced, persistent violations can conceivably be adopted as customary practice, permitting conduct that was once prohibited."  Even if the Greco-German arbitration tribunal findings had established the rules for aerial bombardment, by 1945, the belligerents of World War II had ignored the preliminary bombardment procedures that the Greco-German arbitration tribunal had recognized.

The German bombings of Guernica and Durango in Spain in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939 and the Japanese aerial attacks on crowded Chinese cities during the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937–38 attracted worldwide condemnation, prompting the League of Nations to pass a resolution that called for the protection of civilian populations against bombardment from the air. In response to the resolution passed by the League of Nations, a draft convention in Amsterdam of 1938 would have provided specific definitions of what constituted an "undefended" town, excessive civilian casualties and appropriate warning. This draft convention makes the standard of being undefended quite high – any military units or anti-aircraft within the radius qualifies a town as defended. This convention, like the 1923 draft, was not ratified – nor even close to ratification – when hostilities broke out in Europe in 1939. While the two conventions offer a guideline to what the belligerent powers were considering before the war, neither of these documents came to be legally binding.

At the start of World War II in 1939, following an appeal by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the then neutral United States, the major European powers, including Britain and Germany, agreed not to bomb civilian targets outside combat zones: Britain agreeing provided that the other powers also refrained. (see the policy on strategic bombing at the start of the World War II). However, this was not honored, as belligerents of both sides in the war adopted a policy of indiscriminate bombing of enemy cities. Throughout World War II, cities like Chongqing, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Stalingrad, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki suffered aerial bombardment, causing untold numbers of destroyed buildings and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.

After World War II, the massive destruction of non-combatant targets inflicted during the war prompted the victorious Allies to address the issue when developing the Nuremberg Charter of August 1945 to establish the procedures and laws for conducting the Nuremberg trials (1945–1946). Article 6(b) of the Charter thus condemned the "wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" and classified it as a violation of the laws or customs of war, therefore, making it a war crime. This provision was similarly used at the Tokyo Trials of 1946–1948 to try Japanese military and civilian leaders in accordance with the Tokyo Charter (January 1946) for illegal conducts committed during the Pacific War of 1941–1945. However, due to the absence of positive or specific customary international humanitarian law prohibiting illegal conducts of aerial warfare in World War II, the indiscriminate bombing of enemy cities was excluded from the category of war crimes at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, therefore, no Axis officers and leaders were prosecuted for authorizing this practice. Furthermore, the United Nations War Crimes Commission received no notice of records of trial concerning the illegal conduct of air warfare. Chris Jochnick and Roger Normand in their article The Legitimation of Violence 1: A Critical History of the Laws of War explain that: "By leaving out morale bombing and other attacks on civilians unchallenged, the Tribunal conferred legal legitimacy on such practices."

In 1963 the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki became the subject of a Japanese judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State. In its obiter dictum judgement, the Court drew several distinctions which were pertinent to both conventional and atomic aerial bombardment. Relying on the Hague Convention of 1907 IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land and IX – Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923 the Court drew a distinction between "Targeted Aerial Bombardment" and indiscriminate area bombardment (which the court called "Blind Aerial Bombardment"), and also a distinction between a defended and an undefended city. The court ruled that blind aerial bombardment was permitted only in the immediate vicinity of the operations of land forces and that only targeted aerial bombardment of military installations was permitted further from the front. It also ruled the incidental death of civilians and the destruction of civilian property during targeted aerial bombardment was not unlawful. The court acknowledged that the concept of a military objective was enlarged under conditions of total war, but stated that the distinction between the two did not disappear. The court also ruled that when military targets were concentrated in a comparatively small area, and where defense installations against air raids were very strong, that when the destruction of non-military objectives was small in proportion to the large military interests, or necessity, such destruction was lawful. Thus, because of the immense power of the atom bombs, and the distance from enemy land forces, the atomic bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki "was an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities".

Not all governments and scholars of international law agree with the analysis and conclusions of the Shimoda review, because it was not based on positive international humanitarian law. Colonel Javier Guisández Gómez, at the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in San Remo, points out:

John R. Bolton, (Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001–2005) and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations (2005–2006)), explained in 2001 why the USA should not adhere to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

International law since 1945

In the post war environment, a series of treaties governing the laws of war were adopted starting in 1949. These Geneva Conventions would come into force, in no small part, because of a general reaction against the practices of the Second World War. Although the Fourth Geneva Convention attempted to erect some legal defenses for civilians in time of war, the bulk of the Fourth Convention devoted to explicating civilian rights in occupied territories, and no explicit attention is paid to the problems of bombardment.

In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. However, forces occupying near densely populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near or in densely populated areas and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Failure to do so would cause a higher civilian death toll resulting from bombardment by the attacking force and the defenders would be held responsible, even criminally liable, for these deaths. This issue was addressed because drafters of Protocol I pointed out historical examples such as Japan in World War II who often dispersed legitimate military and industrial targets (almost two-thirds of production was from small factories of thirty or fewer persons or in wooden homes, which were clustered around the factories) throughout urban areas in many of its cities either with the sole purpose of preventing enemy forces from bombing these targets or using its civilian casualties caused by enemy bombardment as propaganda value against the enemy. This move made Japan vulnerable to area bombardment and the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) adopted a policy of carpetbombing which destroyed 69 Japanese cities with either incendiary bombs or atomic bombs, with the deaths of 381,000–500,000 Japanese people.

However, Protocol I also states that locating military objectives near civilians "shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians." (Article 51, Para 8)

The International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion in July 1996 on the Legality of the Threat Or Use of Nuclear Weapons. The court ruled that "[t]here is in neither customary nor international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons." However, by a split vote, it also found that "[t]he threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict." The Court stated that it could not definitively conclude whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of the state would be at stake.

See also
 Aerial bombing of cities
 Area bombardment
 Carpet bombing
 Civilian casualties of strategic bombing
 Roerich Pact
 Strategic bombing
 Tactical bombing
 Terror bombing

Notes

References
Francisco Javier Guisández Gómez, (a colonel in the Spanish Air Force) ICRC: "The Law of Air Warfare"  International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p. 347–363
Joan T. Phillips. List of documents and web links relating to the law of armed conflict in air and space operations, May 2006. Bibliographer, Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center Maxwell (United States) Air Force Base, Alabama.
Jefferson D. Reynolds. "Collateral Damage on the 21st century battlefield: Enemy exploitation of the law of armed conflict, and the struggle for a moral high ground". Air Force Law Review Volume 56, 2005(PDF) pp. 4–108
Charles Rousseau, Le droit des conflits armés'' Editions Pedone, Paris, (1983)

Further reading
 – Commentary on the early conventions including details not yet in this article.

International law
Law of war

Aerial bombardment and international law


The Great Northern Railway (GNR) was a British railway company established in 1846. The main line ran from London King's Cross station via Hitchin, Peterborough, and Grantham, to York. There was a loop line from Peterborough to Bawtry (south of Doncaster) via Boston and Lincoln. There were also branch lines to Sheffield and Wakefield. On 1 January 1923 the company became a part of the London and North Eastern Railway. Today, the GNR main line forms part of the East Coast Main Line.

Pre-grouping British railway companies
1846 establishments in the United Kingdom

Great Northern Railway (Great Britain)


Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.  The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit in the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, has original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.

In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking,  Texas was and remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union in 1845, despite it later purporting to join the Confederate States of America and despite it being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

Background

Secession and bond sales

On February 1, 1861, the Texas secession convention drafted and approved an Ordinance of Secession. This ordinance was subsequently approved by both the state legislature and a statewide referendum. On January 11, 1862, the state legislature approved the creation of a military board to address issues involved in the transition in the shift in loyalty from the United States to the Confederate States.

Texas had received $10 million in United States bonds in settlement of border claims as a part of the Compromise of 1850. While many of the bonds were sold, there were still some unsold in 1861. Needing money, the legislature authorized the sale of the remaining bonds. Existing state law required that the Texas governor sign his endorsement on any bonds that were sold, but the state feared that the sale price would be depressed if the United States Treasury refused to honor bonds sold by a Confederate state. The legislature therefore repealed the requirement for the governor's endorsement in order to hide the origin of the bonds.

Before the bonds were sold, a Texas Unionist notified the Treasury which ran a legal notice in the New York Tribune that it would not honor any bonds from Texas unless they were endorsed by the prewar governor (Sam Houston). Despite the warning, 136 bonds were purchased by a brokerage owned by George W. White and John Chiles. Although this sale probably occurred earlier, the written confirmation of the transaction was not executed until January 12, 1865. The bonds were in the meantime resold to several individuals, one or more of whom were able to successfully redeem the bonds through the United States government.

With the end of the war, President Andrew Johnson appointed a temporary governor, Andrew J. Hamilton, and ordered Texas to create a new state constitution and form a new state government loyal to the Union. James W. Throckmorton was elected governor under this process. Throckmorton was in office for a year before General Philip Sheridan, the military commander of the Military District of the Southwest, dismissed him for being an "impediment to the reconstruction of the State", appointing Elisha M. Pease in his place. Pease was a Republican who had lost to Throckmorton in the election.

As the United States Treasury Department became aware of the situation regarding the bonds, it refused to redeem those bonds sold by White and Chiles. After the state realized that it was no longer in possession of the bonds, it determined that the bonds had been sold illicitly to finance the rebellion against the United States. All three of the governors, in order to regain ownership of the bonds for the state, approved filing a lawsuit under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which granted original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in all cases "in which a State shall be a party". The case, filed on February 15, 1867, appeared on the docket as The State of Texas, Compt., v. George W. White, John Chiles, John A. Hardenburg, Samuel Wolf, George W. Stewart, the Branch of the Commercial Bank of Kentucky, Weston F. Birch, Byron Murray, Jr., and Shaw.

John Chiles, who was being sued along with White, argued that he could not be sued because Texas lacked evidence. He claimed the bond documents were destroyed by soldiers and that there was no way to get them back. White believed therefore, that he should not have to reimburse the state of Texas.

Reconstruction politics

By the time the suit was filed, the radical faction of Republicans in Congress opposed President Johnson's policy in Reconstruction. Radicals opposed the creation of provisional state governments, and moderates were frustrated by a number of lawsuits instigated by provisional Southern governors attempting to obstruct congressional reconstruction. Increasingly, Republicans were abandoning Lincoln's position that the states had never left the Union, preferring to treat the South as conquered provinces totally subject to Congressional rule. They hoped that the Supreme Court would reject jurisdiction in the case by claiming that there was no legally recognized government in Texas.

Democrats, on the other hand, wanted the Court to acknowledge the existence of an official state government in Texas. Such a ruling would have the effect of accepting Texas as fully restored to its place in the Union and render the Military Reconstruction Act unconstitutional. Wall Street was also concerned with the case, opposing any actions that threatened bondholders and investors.

Arguments

Twelve attorneys represented Texas and the various defendants in the case.  Arguments before the Supreme Court were made over three days on February 5, 8 and 9, 1869.

State of Texas, Plaintiff

The complaint filed by Texas claimed ownership of the bonds and requested that the defendants turn the bonds over to the state.  Texas's attorneys disputed the legitimacy of the Confederate state legislature that had allowed the bonds to be sold. In response to an issue raised by the defendants, Texas differentiated between those acts of the legislature necessary "to preserve the social community from anarchy and to maintain order" (such as marriages and routine criminal and civil matters) and those "designed to promote the Confederacy or that were in violation of the U.S. Constitution".

Texas argued that it was a well established legal principle that if the original transfer to White and Chiles was invalid, then the subsequent transfers were also invalid. Chiles and White might be liable to such purchasers and any purchasers who had successfully redeemed the bonds were liable for a personal judgment in favor of the state for the amount they received.

Defendants

The attorneys for Chiles first raised the issue of jurisdiction.  They claimed that the section of the Constitution granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction did not apply. Texas's current situation was not that of a state as contemplated by the Founders, but was that of a territory secured by military conquest. Residents of Texas were subject to military rule and had no representation in Congress and no constitutional rights.

Chiles's attorneys also argued that the sale of the bonds itself, even if conducted by a revolutionary government, was not in violation of the Constitution. Their sale was for the benefit of the people of the state, and the people, simply because they now had a different government, could not decide to invalidate the predecessor government's actions.  They rejected the notion that the people of the state and the state itself were legally separate entities. As long as the people had chosen to act through representatives it was irrelevant who those representatives were.

James Mandeville Carlisle, the attorney for Hardenburg, argued that, since his client had purchased his bonds on the open market in New York, he had no way of knowing about any possible questions concerning the validity of his title. Carlisle further stated that the precedents recognizing that the decisions of the "revolutionary" government would be binding on any subsequent governments were "universally admitted in the public law of nations".

White's attorney, P. Phillips, argued that, if the bond sales were invalid, then all actions of the state government during the war were null and void. He stated that "civilized government recognizes the necessity of government at all times". Phillips concluded his presentation by stating that, if, in fact, Texas had acted illegally during the war, then a subsequent government had no right to appeal that illegality to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Majority opinion

The court delivered its opinion (with five justices supporting and three dissenting) on April 12, 1869. Chief Justice Salmon Chase, a former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under President Abraham Lincoln, first addressed a procedural issue raised in the original filings claiming that the state lacked the authority to prosecute the case. Chase ruled that the approval by any one of the three governors of the original bill submitted to the court was sufficient to authorize the action.

Chase wrote that the original Union of the colonies had been made in reaction to very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the Articles of Confederation, which established a perpetual union between these states. The Constitution, when implemented, only strengthened and perfected this relationship. Chase wrote:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

After establishing the origin of the nation, Chase next addressed Texas's relationship to that Union.  He rejected the notion that Texas had merely created a compact with the other states; rather, he said, it had in fact incorporated itself into an existing indissoluble political body. From the decision:
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

For these reasons, Texas had never been outside the Union and any state actions taken to declare secession or implement the Ordinance of Secession were null and void. The rights of the state itself, as well as the rights of Texans as citizens of the United States, remained unimpaired. From the decision:

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

However, the state's suspension of the prewar government did require the United States to put down the rebellion and reestablish the proper relationship between Texas and the federal government. These obligations were created by the Constitution in its grant of the power to suppress insurrections and the responsibility to insure for every state a republican form of government.  From the decision:

The authority for the performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war; for the performance of the second, authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State and for the time excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the former.

Having settled the jurisdiction issue, Chase moved on to the question of who owned title to the bonds. In previous circuit court cases, Chase had recognized the validity of legislative decisions intended solely to maintain peace and order within Southern society. He had recognized the validity of "marriage licenses, market transactions, and other day-to-day acts legally sanctioned by the Confederate state governments."  However, he clearly treated actions in furtherance of the war effort in a different light. From the decision:

It is not necessary to attempt any exact definitions within which the acts of such a State government must be treated as valid or invalid. It may be said, perhaps with sufficient accuracy, that acts necessary to peace and good order among citizens, such for example, as acts sanctioning and protecting marriage and the domestic relations, governing the course of descents, regulating the conveyance and transfer of property, real and personal, and providing remedies for injuries to person and estate, and other similar acts, which would be valid if emanating from a lawful government must be regarded in general as valid when proceeding from an actual, though unlawful, government, and that acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void.

Chase ruled that the state's relationship with White and Chiles "was therefore treasonable and void". Consequently, he ordered that the current state of Texas retained ownership of the bonds and was entitled either to the return of the bonds or to the payment of a cash equivalent from those who had redeemed the bonds.

Dissenting opinion

Justice Robert Grier wrote a dissent in which he stated that he disagreed "on all points raised and decided" by the majority.  Grier relied on the case Hepburn v. Ellzey (1805) in which Chief Justice John Marshall had defined a state as an entity entitled to representatives in both Congress and the Electoral College. Thus, Texas's status had become more analogous to an Indian tribe than to a state. He also believed that the issue of Texas statehood was a matter for congressional rather than judicial determination, and he was "not disposed to join in any essay to prove Texas to be a State of the Union when Congress had decided that she is not". Justice Grier said that Texas's claim that she was not a state during the Civil War was the equivalent of making a "plea of insanity" and asking the court to now overrule all her acts "made during the disease". Justices Noah Swayne and Samuel F. Miller also dissented.

The dissenting justices rejected the majority opinion for different reasons. Grier, a "doughface" from Pennsylvania, was opposed to Radical Reconstruction and was primarily concerned with the bondholders. He felt that the Treasury lost any control over the bonds immediately after they were issued. Miller and Swayne were more sympathetic than Chase to the radical position. In a separate dissent they agreed with the majority that the bonds had been sold illegally by the secessionist government, but agreed with Grier that the current state of Texas was not a state within the meaning of the Constitution.

Reaction

The Court's decision, written by Chase, was criticized by both sides.  Radical Republicans saw this as evidence that Chase was abandoning a cause he had once enthusiastically supported.  Conservatives condemned Chase for a decision that would allow congressional reconstruction to continue.

In December, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, using the Miller–Swayne dissent as his model, introduced legislation to overcome the White decision.  Trumbull's bill stated that "under the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on political questions".  In a direct attack on Chase's position the bill stipulated that "it rests with Congress to decide what Government is the established one in a State, and that it is hereby, in accordance with former legislation, declared that no civil State Government exists in Virginia, Mississippi, or Texas." The legislation was defeated by the more conservative members of Congress.

Aleksandar Pavković and Peter Radan in Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession state "'There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States' was not surprising. Given that the United States was born from revolution, Chase's words echo what had been stated by many legal scholars and politicians of the day, including Abraham Lincoln and Daniel Webster."

See also
Secession in the United States
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 74
Reference Re Secession of Quebec – a similar case in Canada regarding unilateral secession

References

Murray, Robert Bruce. Legal Cases of the Civil War. (2003)
Nevin, John. Salmon P. Chase: A Biography. (1995)
Ross, Michael A. Justice of Shattered Dreams: Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court during the Civil War Era. (2003)

Further reading
 Hyman, Harold Melvin. The reconstruction justice of Salmon P. Chase: in re Turner and Texas v. White (University Press of Kansas, 1997)
 Radan, Peter. "Indestructible Union... of Indestructible States: The Supreme Court of the United States and Secession," Legal History. 10 (2006): 187. online
Spaeth, Harold J. and Smith, Edward Conrad. (1991). HarperCollins college outline series: Constitution of the United States. (13th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
 Pierson, William Whatley. "Texas versus White." Southwestern Historical Quarterly (1915) 18#4 pp. 341–67. in JSTOR, focus on the role of the bonds

External links

1869 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction cases
v. White
Aftermath of the American Civil War
Texas secession movements
Legal history of Texas
1869 in Texas
Government bonds
United States Supreme Court cases of the Chase Court

Texas v. White


A grebe is a medium sized bird. They are in the family Podicipedidae. There are 22 species of grebe.

Genera and species

Genus Tachybaptus
Little Grebe, Tachybaptus  ruficollis
Australasian Grebe Tachybaptus novaehollandiae
Madagascar Grebe, Tachybaptus pelzelnii
Alaotra Grebe, Tachybaptus rufolavatus — probably extinct (late 1980s)
Least Grebe, Tachybaptus dominicus

Genus Podilymbus
Pied-billed Grebe, Podilymbus podiceps
Atitlán Grebe, Podilymbus gigas — extinct (1989)

Genus Rollandia
White-tufted Grebe, Rollandia rolland
Titicaca Flightless Grebe, Rollandia microptera

Genus Poliocephalus
Hoary-headed Grebe, Poliocephalus poliocephalus
New Zealand Dabchick, Poliocephalus rufopectus

Genus Podiceps
Red-necked Grebe, Podiceps grisegena
Great Crested Grebe, Podiceps cristatus
Slavonian Grebe or Horned Grebe, Podiceps auritus
Black-necked Grebe or Eared Grebe, Podiceps nigricollis
Colombian Grebe, Podiceps andinus — extinct (1977)
Great Grebe, Podiceps major
Silvery Grebe, Podiceps occipitalis
Junin Flightless Grebe, Podiceps taczanowskii
Hooded Grebe, Podiceps gallardoi

Genus Aechmophorus
Western Grebe, Aechmophorus occidentalis
Clark's Grebe, Aechmophorus clarkii

Description, color and shape
Most grebes are a medium or large size. Some grebes, such as the Little Grebe are smaller. All Grebes have large feet with lobed toes. This means that each toe is separate on the foot (the opposite of this is webbed feet which is seen in ducks and geese). Some grebes find it difficult to walk on land because their feet are so big. They are much better at swimming and diving in water.

Grebes have narrow wings. Some grebes find it difficult to fly. There are two species of grebe that cannot fly at all. This means that if grebes are in danger, they will dive under water instead of flying away like other birds do.

Grebes can have long or short bills. If they eat insects in the water, they will have a short bills. If they eat crustaceans (for example, crabs) they will have a long, sharp bill.

Most grebes are brown, white and red/orange. They have many, waterproof feathers. This means they can easily float on water and dive into water without getting cold or wet. In spring and summer, grebes have orange crests on their heads. This is so they can attract a mate. Some grebes do a mating ritual. This is when they "dance" in the water.

Grebes make their nest from plants found in the water. The nests float on top of the water. Baby grebes can swim when they are born. They are usually brown and white and do not get their orange crests until they are adults.

Habitat
Grebes live in freshwater (lakes or rivers). Some species of grebe will go to saltwater (sea/ocean) when they are migrating. This is when birds fly to live in a different place in summer or winter. Grebes only migrate if they live in North America, Europe or Asia. Grebes in South America, Africa and Asia do not migrate. They are found in every continent on earth.

Grebe


The Jammu and Kashmir conflict (, ) is a dispute over the territory of Kashmir. The dispute is between India, Pakistan and China. India claims all of the region that was once a princely state which it considers it's territory. It currently controls about 43% of the territory, including most of Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier. India's claims are disputed by Pakistan, which controls about 45% of Jammu and Kashmir, including Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan says there should be a referendum in Kashmir on whether the people want to join India or Pakistan, or become independent.

History
The conflict started during the Partition of India (1947–48). On October 20, 1947, tribesmen backed by Pakistan invaded Kashmir. The Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir initially fought back but on 27 October appealed for assistance to the Governor-General Louis Mountbatten, who agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India and that a plebiscite would be held afterwards, which was not. Once the papers of accession to India were signed, Indian soldiers entered Kashmir with orders to stop any further occupation, but they were not allowed to remove anyone from the state. India took the matter to the United Nations. The UN resolution asked Pakistan to vacate the areas it has occupied and asked India to assist the U.N. Plebiscite Commission to organize a plebiscite to determine the will of the people. Pakistan refused to vacate the occupied areas.

In 1947-8 India and Pakistan fought their first war over Jammu and Kashmir. Under United Nations' supervision, they agreed to a ceasefire along a line which left one-third of the state - comprising what Pakistan calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and the Northern Areas administered by Pakistan and two-thirds, Jammu, Ladakh and the Kashmir Valley, controlled by India. In 1972, under the terms of the Simla agreement, the ceasefire line was renamed the Line of Control.

Although India claims that the entire state is part of India, it has been prepared to accept the Line of Control as the international border, with some possible modifications. Both the US and the UK have also favoured turning the Line of Control into an internationally-recognised frontier.

But Pakistan has consistently refused to accept the Line of Control as the border since the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley would remain as part of India. Formalising the status quo also does not take account of the aspirations of those Kashmiris who have been fighting since 1989 for independence for the whole or part of the state.

Water dispute
Another reason behind the dispute over Kashmir is water. Many rivers start in Kashmir. Some of them are tributaries of the Indus River basin, such as the Jhelum and Chenab River. These flow into Pakistan and are used for irrigation there. Other rivers like the Ravi, Beas River and the Sutlej flow into northern India.

One of the origins of the conflict is that with the Boundary Award of 1947, many of the Pakistani irrigation systems can be controlled from India. Pakistan has been afraid that India could stop the flow of rivers that start in Indian-controlled Kashmir and flow into Pakistan. This would harm the agrarian economy of Pakistan. The Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960 resolved most of these disputes over the sharing of water.

Current status
Today Kashmir is split, as follows:
Republic of India controls the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It is made of the Jammu region, the Kashmir valley, and Ladakh. Pakistan refers to this as Indian occupied kashmir or Indian controlled kashmir, or Indian annexed kashmir and Indian held kashmir.
The territories known as Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir are administered by Pakistan. Islamabad calls them Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India refers to this as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
The region called Aksai Chin is controlled by China. China also controls a territory it received from Pakistan, called Trans-Karakoram Tract. The legality of this swap is disputed by India.
The Siachen Glacier is currently a disputed territory, India controls the glacier, Pakistan the valley below.
The Trans-Karakoram Tract is an area Pakistan gave to China in 1963, March 3rd. Pakistan says the area was uninhabited, so there is no problem to this. India claims this area as part of its state Jammu and Kashmir.

Kashmir has been a source of conflict between India and Pakistan for more than 60 years. Currently a boundary - the Line of Control - divides the region in two, with one part occupied by India and one militarily administrated by Pakistan. India would like to formalise this status quo and make it the accepted international boundary. But Pakistan and Kashmiri activists reject this plan because they both want greater control over the region.

Map issues

As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir as part of their territory, regardless of actual control. It is illegal in India to exclude all or part of Kashmir in a map. It is also illegal in Pakistan not to include the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Non-participants often use the Line of Control and the Line of Actual Control as the depicted boundaries, as is done in the CIA World Factbook, and the region is often marked out in hashmarks, although the Indian government strictly opposes such practices. When Microsoft released a map in Windows 95 and MapPoint 2002, a controversy was raised because it did not show parts of Kashmir as part of India as per Indian claim. However, all the neutral companies claim to follow the UN's map and over 90% of all maps containing the territory of Kashmir show it as disputed territory.

International responses

References

Kashmir
Territorial disputes

Kashmir conflict


The Ford Vedette wis a lairge caur manufactured bi Ford France SA in thair factory in Poissy frae 1948 tae 1954. Introduced at the 1948 Mondial de l'Automobile in Paris, it wis designed entirely in Detroit (resemblin contemporary Mercury models), but featurt the Poissy-made 2158 cc Aquillon sidevalve V8 ingine o Ford's Flathead ingine faimily, the same as in pre-war Matford caurs. On the ither haund, the Vedette wis the first caur tae featur the new independent front suspension concept developt bi Earle S. MacPherson, kent the day as MacPherson struts.

Uneasy beginnings
Due tae the fact that the Poissy factory coud no resume complete automobile production immediately efter the war, mony vital components haed still tae be made bi various subcontractors, which reportedly haed an adverse effect on the quality o the caur an contributit tae its leemitit popularity. Ower the sax years in production, the Vedette wis available in several body styles, rangin frae the oreeginal 4-door fastback  (wi rear "suicide doors") throu the later 4-door saloon, a Sunliner 4-door landaulet based on the saloon (wi a roll-doun roof ower the entire cabin), a 2-door Coupé an, based on it, the Cabriolet Décapotable (a 2-door convertible).

Enter Mr. Lehideux
Unner the direction o the new company preses, Mr. François Lehideux, Ford France refresht the caur for 1950, an again in 1952, when the caur finally received a ane-piece windscreen, new interior an bumpers, better brakes, lairger trunk - an a cigarette lichter. The 1952 Mondial de l'Automobile an' a' saw a luxury version o the Vedette, the Ford Vendôme, fittit wi the bigger 3923 cc Mistral V8 ingine, previously uised in Ford France trucks. An' a' debutin in 1952 wis the 5-door, 5-seat Abeille (French for "bee") estate wi a twa-piece tailgate, advertised as baith practical (wi a payload o 500 kg) an comfortable.

Enter Mr. Pigozzi
Facin unsatisfactory sales results, as weel as disruptive strikes at the Poissy plant at the turn o the decade, Ford haed been tryin tae dispose o the factory syne shortly efter the end o the war. An opportunity arose in 1954, when Henri-Theodore Pigozzi, the foonder o the increasingly successfu French automakker Simca, wis leukin for a new plant tae expand its operations. Ford France wis merged intae Simca wi baith the Poissy plant an the richts tae aw models manufactured thare - includin a newly-designed new Vedette. The new caur haed debuted awready in Fraunce unner the name o Simca Vedette, but wis sauld as the Ford Vedette in some mercats (includin Swaden, the Netherlands an Germany) at least till 1956.

References

Freemit airtins
 Club Vedette France
 Mademoiselle Ford @ Best Cars Web Site

1940s automobiles
1950s automobiles
Vedette
1948 introductions

Ford Vedette