The future director of the FBI was born today in 1895.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
More of Today In History- A Dark Empie Is Born In The United States
Began as more of a fraternal order, the Ku Klux Klan had its beginnings in Pulaski, Tennessee in 1865. But, rose to called the Secret Empire in the 1920's under the auspices of hate.
Today In History- The Forgotten War Ends In 1814
With the signing of the Treaty of Ghent.... the War of 1812 ends. After watching this, you should get a deeper and more whole perspective of this war.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Today In History..... If You Can Hear It
Van Gogh cuts off his ear, in a fit of his long bought with depression.
Sunken Cities
The documentary does fall apart a bit when trying to make history 'cultural relevant' but that aside I wonder how many other cities and ruins lay under the water and muck of the oceans, covered at the end of the last ice age. And you wonder where the stories of great floods came from.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Stone Age Atlantis- Doggerland
A fascinating look at a submerged stone age land. A truly lost world that now sits at the bottom of the North Sea.
On This Day- Stalin Was Born In 1878
A 2003 BBC documentary examining the life and dictatorship of Stalin.
Today in History (?)- A Great Scientific Discovery (?) Was Made
Piltdown man was unearthed by Charles Dawson on this day in 1912. Heralded as the missing link between man and ape, Piltdown man was later discovered to be an elaborate hoax some 40 years later.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Solutreans In America
It is still debatable if the Solutreans made their way tot he Americas during the the last Ice Age, with both sides of the debate claiming and showing evidence that proves the respective point. I, for one, don't see why it could not have happened, considering the similarities in the Clovis points across the continents, but I am unsure if if happened considering the extreme challenges. The following video takes liberty with the notion that the stone age Europeans did reach the Americas and surmises how the trip could have taken place.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Pre-Clovis Populating of the Americas
The more we look, the more we find evidence that the 10,000 year and Clovis populating of the Americas gets pushed back further and further.
Today In History- British Colonists Take One Step Closer to Revolt
Just a brief note, I will taking some intermittent time off over the next few weeks and some updates may be sparse. With that, today in 1773 the British colonists in Boston took part in a resistance event that would be called the Boston Tea Party.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Today In History- Beethoven Born in 1770
Today in Bonn, Germany circa Beethoven was born and instead of providing a documentary of sorts, I will let his music speak the volumes of the master's contribution to the world.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Ancient Egypt Origins- A Different Story
I debated presenting this, as a good deal of the ideas presented I just do not accept. Additionally, many of the commentators take a generally mysterious circumstance and make unsupported and grand claims based on these mysterious. However, the mysteries themselves and some of the ideas presented show one aspect of history's study that is usually never talked about...... that we just don't know. Much of our knowledge of history is based on assumption and conjecture. Some of these conjectures are likely more correct than not, but that does not mean we should just stop questioning our assumptions.
And in The World of Music.... 'Old Blue Eyes' Born Today in 1915
No matter your age, race, religion, creed, or whatever moniker you want to place on yourself, Frank Sinatra's voice has a hypnotic and timeless quality to it. Instead of showing some documentary on the life of 'Old Blue Eyes' I thought his music could say it all........
On second thought, I could not leave you without a look at Sinatra's life. Here is a documentary of Sinatra from CBS....
On second thought, I could not leave you without a look at Sinatra's life. Here is a documentary of Sinatra from CBS....
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Today in History- Hitler Declares War With the United States
Thus starting one of the bleakest chapters in the history of the United States, if not a chapter in the history of the World. One positive that came out of the ordeal.... the eventual overthrow of the fascist dictators ruling over Europe.
The following is supposedly the text of that deceleration.
The following is supposedly the text of that deceleration.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Today in History.... In 1520
Martin Luther burns the papal edict demanding he retract his attack on the Catholic Church and the Pope.
Today in History- The Metric System Devised in 1799
This short film is from 1975.... and the US still has not converted.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Today In History....... A Charlie Brown Christmas Special Debuts
For something on the lighter fair, but has a somewhat profound affect on anyone who has watched the great cartoon.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Today In History In 1768- Encyclopedia Brittanica First Published
A little fair for you today and historical in its own way, here is a commercial for the encyclopedia circa the early 1990's. I suppose encyclopedias are 'history' in their own regards.
Yesterday In History- Mandel or The Che Guevara of Of Africa Passed
I post for you for a number of reasons, first of all, who is not talking about the death of Mandela. Second, his death marks a milestone in history, and apparently a history altered to fit a narrative. The media reports how the world lost a great man, but disregards that he was an advocate of violence and that the political organization he led performed atrocious acts. That said, he and people acting under his martyrdom were able to end an oppressive apartheid system in South Africa and further the goals of peace.
In any event, I show the piece below as a compare and contrast against the regular media narratives on Mandela, as to show you that history (even modern ongoing history) is shaped and viewed by the people studying it and their values.
By Ilana Mercer
…To some extent, Mandela’s legend has been nourished—even created—by sentimental Westerners. The measure of the man whom Oprah Winfrey and supermodel Naomi Campbell have taken to calling “Madiba”—Mandela’s African honorific; Winfrey and Campbell’s African affectation—has been determined by the soggy sentimentality of our MTV-coated culture. “Madiba’s” TV smile has won out over his political philosophy, founded as it is on energetic income redistribution in the neo-Marxist tradition, on “land reform” in the same tradition, and on ethnic animosity toward the Afrikaner.
History is being extremely kind to “Madiba.” Since he came to power in 1994, approximately 300,000 people have been murdered. The “Umkhonto we Sizwe” rallying cry is, indubitably, emblematic of the murderous reality that is the democratic South Africa. For having chosen not to implement the ANC’s radical agenda from the 1950s, Mandela incurred the contempt of oddball socialist scribes like the Canadian Naomi Klein. Were Ms. Klein—the author of No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies—more discerning, she’d have credited Mandela for brilliantly rebranding socialism.
An important element of our policy,” he said at the fiftieth ANC Conference, on December 16, 1997, “is the deracialisation of the economy to ensure that … in its ownership and management, this economy increasingly reflects the racial composition of our society … The situation cannot be sustained in which the future of humanity is surrendered to the so-called free market, with government denied the right to intervene … The evolution of the capitalist system in our country put on the highest pedestal the promotion of the material interests of the white minority.
Back to the original question: Why have the leaders of the most powerful country on the continent (Mandela and Mbeki) succored the leader of the most corrupt (Mugabe)? The luminaries of Western café society were not the only ones to have given Mugabe a pass. So did blacks. “When Mugabe slaughtered 20,000 black people in southern Zimbabwe in 1983,” observes columnist Andrew Kenny, “nobody outside Zimbabwe, including the ANC, paid it the slightest attention. Nor did they care when, after 2000, he drove thousands of black farm workers out of their livelihoods and committed countless atrocities against his black population. But when he killed a dozen white farmers and pushed others off their farms, it caused tremendous excitement.”
“Whenever there is a South African radio phone-in programme [sic] on Zimbabwe, white South Africans and black Zimbabweans denounce Mugabe, and black South Africans applaud him. Therefore, one theory goes, Mbeki could not afford to criticise [sic] Mugabe,” who is revered, never reviled, by South African blacks.
Except that it’s not so peaceful. South Africans are dying in droves, a reality the affable Mandela, the imperious Mbeki, and their successor Zuma have accepted without piety and pity.
In any event, I show the piece below as a compare and contrast against the regular media narratives on Mandela, as to show you that history (even modern ongoing history) is shaped and viewed by the people studying it and their values.
By Ilana Mercer
Former South African President Nelson Mandela has died at age 95. As a historic corrective, here are excerpts from “The Che Guevara of Of Africa,” a chapter in my book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” devoted to correcting the myths about the man:
THE CHE GUEVARA OF AFRICA
…To some extent, Mandela’s legend has been nourished—even created—by sentimental Westerners. The measure of the man whom Oprah Winfrey and supermodel Naomi Campbell have taken to calling “Madiba”—Mandela’s African honorific; Winfrey and Campbell’s African affectation—has been determined by the soggy sentimentality of our MTV-coated culture. “Madiba’s” TV smile has won out over his political philosophy, founded as it is on energetic income redistribution in the neo-Marxist tradition, on “land reform” in the same tradition, and on ethnic animosity toward the Afrikaner.
Guru and gadfly, sage and showman, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela is not the
focus of this monograph. Boatloads of biographical stuffing can be found
in the odes penned to the man. Concentrating on Mandela, moreover, in a
narrative about South Africa today would be like focusing on Jimmy
Carter in an account of America of 2010. Going against the trend of
hagiography as we are, it must be conceded that, notwithstanding
Mandela’s agreement with the “racial socialism” currently contributing
to the destruction of South Africa, his present role in his country’s
Zimbabwefication is more symbolic—symbolic such as his belated,
tokenistic condemnation of Mugabe to an intellectually meaty crowd of
“moody models, desperate divas and priapic ex-Presidents,”39 who
convened to celebrate Nelson’s ninetieth. The focus of our attention is,
then, not the aging leader but his legacy, the ANC. Or “The Scourge of
the ANC,” to quote the title of the polemical essay by Dan Roodt.
The patrician Mandela certainly deserves the sobriquets heaped on him by
the distinguished liberal historian Hermann Giliomee: “He had an
imposing bearing and a physical presence, together with gravitas and
charisma. He also had that rare, intangible quality best described by
Seamus Heaney as ‘great transmission of grace.’” Undeniably and
uniquely, Mandela combined “the style of a tribal chief and that of an
instinctive democratic leader, accompanied by old-world courtesy.”42 But
there’s more to Mandela than meets the proverbial eye.
Cut to the year 1992. The occasion was immortalized on YouTube in 2006.
Mandela’s fist is clenched in a black power salute. Flanking him are
members of the South African Communist Party, African National Congress
leaders, and the ANC’s terrorist arm, the Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), which
Mandela led. The sweet sounds of the MK anthem mask the ditty’s
murderous words:
Go safely mkhonto
Mkonto we Sizwe
We the members of the Umkhonto have pledged ourselves to kill them—kill the whites
The catchy chorus is repeated many times and finally sealed with the
responsorial, “Amandla!” (“Power”); followed by “Awethu” (“to the
People”). Mandela’s genial countenance is at odds with the
blood-curdling hymn he is mouthing. The “kill the whites” rallying cry
still inspires enthusiasm at funerals and at political gatherings across
South Africa, and has been, in practice, a soundtrack for the epic
murder campaign currently being waged—however seldom it is
acknowledged—against the country’s Boers. This is a side of the revered
leader the world seldom sees. Or, rather, has chosen to ignore. Indeed,
it appears impossible to persuade the charmed circles of the West that
their idol (Mandela) had a bloodthirsty side, that his country (South
Africa) is far from a political idyll, and that these facts might
conceivably be important in assessing him.
Thanks to the foreign press, an elusive aura has always surrounded
Mandela. At the time of his capture in 1962 and trial in 1963 for
terrorism, he was described as though in possession of
Scarlet-Pimpernel-like qualities—materializing and dematerializing
mysteriously for his spectacular cameos. The reality of his arrest and
capture were, however, decidedly more prosaic. (At the time, the
writer’s father had briefly sheltered the children of two Jewish
fugitives involved with the ANC’s operations. The family home was
ransacked, and the infant Ilana’s mattress shredded by the South African
Police.) About the myth of Mandela as a disciplined freedom fighter,
the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review writes wryly:
[A]s a newly qualified attorney [Mandela] was known as a big spending ladies’ man rather than as a focused political activist. To the horror of his African National Congress (ANC) colleagues, he even fancied becoming a professional boxer, so some of the ANC sighed with relief when he went to jail.
Nor was the ANC very good at terrorism—it certainly had nothing on the
ascetic, self-sacrificing Salafis who man al-Qaeda. “Without East
European expertise and logistics, not to forget Swedish money, [the ANC]
would never have managed to make and transport a single bomb across the
South African border,”45 avers Roodt. There was certainly precious
little that would have dampened Joseph Lelyveld’s enthusiasm for “The
Struggle.” But when the former (aforementioned) New York Times editor
went looking for his exiled ANC heroes all over Africa, he found nothing
but monosyllabic, apathetic, oft-inebriated men whom he desperately
tried to rouse with revolutionary rhetoric.
In any event, the sainted Mandela was caught plotting sabotage and
conspiring to overthrow the government. “Mandela … freely admitted at
his trial, ‘I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I planned it as a
result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation’”
Confirms Giliomee: “Under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, the armed
wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe, embarked on a low-key campaign of
sabotage.” For that he was incarcerated for life. In 1967, the U.S. had
similarly incarcerated the Black Panther’s Huey Newton for committing
murder and other “revolutionary” acts against “racist” America. The FBI
under J. Edgar Hoover proceeded to hunt down his compatriots who were
plotting sabotage and assassination. Were they wrong too? The South
African government later offered to release Mandela if he foreswore
violence. Mandela—heroically, at least as The New York Times saw
it48—refused to do any such thing; so he sat. At the time, the Pentagon
had classified the ANC as a terrorist organization. Amnesty
International concurred, in a manner; it never recognized Mandela as a
prisoner of conscience due to his commitment to violence. In 2002, “ANC
member Tokyo Sexwale …, was refused a visa to the United States as a
result of his terrorist past.”
Mandela has not always embodied the “great transmission of grace.” The
man who causes the Clintons, rocker Bono, Barbra Streisand, Richard
Branson, and even Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands to fall about
themselves, was rather ungracious to George W. Bush. In 2003, Bush had
conferred on Mandela the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Medal of
Freedom. Mandela greedily accepted the honor, but responded rudely by
calling America “a power with a president who has no foresight and
cannot think properly,” and “is now wanting to plunge the world into a
holocaust … If there is a country that has committed unspeakable
atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t
care for human beings.” If the then eighty-five-year-old Mandela was
referring to the invasion of Iraq, he must have forgotten in his dotage
that he had invaded Lesotho in 1998. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Rebranding Socialism
History is being extremely kind to “Madiba.” Since he came to power in 1994, approximately 300,000 people have been murdered. The “Umkhonto we Sizwe” rallying cry is, indubitably, emblematic of the murderous reality that is the democratic South Africa. For having chosen not to implement the ANC’s radical agenda from the 1950s, Mandela incurred the contempt of oddball socialist scribes like the Canadian Naomi Klein. Were Ms. Klein—the author of No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies—more discerning, she’d have credited Mandela for brilliantly rebranding socialism.
His crafty Third-Way politics aside, Mandela has nevertheless remained
as committed as his political predecessors to race-based social
planning.
An important element of our policy,” he said at the fiftieth ANC Conference, on December 16, 1997, “is the deracialisation of the economy to ensure that … in its ownership and management, this economy increasingly reflects the racial composition of our society … The situation cannot be sustained in which the future of humanity is surrendered to the so-called free market, with government denied the right to intervene … The evolution of the capitalist system in our country put on the highest pedestal the promotion of the material interests of the white minority.
Wrong, “Madiba.” If anything, capitalism undermined the country’s caste
system; and capitalists had consistently defied apartheid’s race-based
laws because of their “material interests.” Why, the “biggest industrial
upheaval in South Africa’s history,” the miner’s strike of 1922,
erupted because “the Chamber of Mines announced plans to extend the use
of black labor. By 1920 the gold mines employed over twenty-one thousand
whites … and nearly one hundred and eighty thousand blacks.” White
miners were vastly more expensive than black miners, and not much more
productive.
One of the mining chiefs, Sir Lionel Phillips, stated flatly that the
wages paid to European miners put the economic existence of the mines in
jeopardy. … Production costs were rising so the mining houses, entirely
English owned and with no great sympathy for their increasingly
Afrikaner workforce, proposed to abandon existing agreements with the
white unions and open up for black workers…jobs previously reserved for
whites.
A small war ensued. Bigotry led to bloodshed and martial law was
declared. Although a defining event in the annals of South African
labor, the General Strike exemplified the way South African capitalists
worked against apartheid to maximize self-interest. Mandela clearly
looks at business through the wrong end of a telescope.
Problematic too is Mandela’s Orwellian use of the world
“deracialisation,” when what he was in fact describing and prescribing
is racialization—a coerced state of affairs whereby the economy is
forced, by hook or by crook, to reflect the country’s racial
composition. Duly, the father of the Rainbow Nation also fathered the
Employment Equity Act. It has seen the ANC assume partial ownership over
business.
Mandela’s comrade-in-arms, the late Joe Slovo, once dilated on the
nature of ownership in the New South Africa. In an interview with a
liberal newsman, this ANC and Communist Party leader suggested an
alternative to nationalization which he dubbed ‘socialization.’” With a
wink and a nod Slovo explained how the state would—and has since begun
to—assume control of the economy “without ownership”:
The state could pass a law to give control without ownership—it can just do it. It can say the state has the right to take the following decisions in Anglo American [the great mining company]. You can have regulations and legislation like that, without ownership.
All of which is under way in South Africa. Mandela, moreover, has
provided the intellectual seed-capital for this catastrophic “racial
socialism.” (And who can forget how, in September of 1991, “Mr. Mandela
threatened South African business with nationalization of mines and
financial institutions unless business [came] up with an alternative
option for the redistribution of wealth”?)
If the values that have guided Mandela’s governance can be discounted,
then it is indeed possible to credit him with facilitating transition
without revolution in South Africa. Unlike Mugabe, Mandela did not
appoint himself Leader for Life, and has been the only head of state on
the Continent to have ceded power voluntarily after a term in office. If
not aping Africa’s ruling rogues is an achievement, then so be it.
Granted, Mandela has also attempted to mediate peace around Africa. But,
“not long after he was released from prison,” notes The New Republic’s
assistant editor James Kirchick, “Mr. Mandela began cavorting with the
likes of Fidel Castro (‘Long live Comrade Fidel Castro!’ he said at a
1991 rally in Havana), Moammar Gaddafi (whom he visited in 1997,
greeting the Libyan dictator as ‘my brother leader’), and Yasser Arafat
(‘a comrade in arms’).” One has to wonder, though, why Mr. Kirchick
feigns surprise at—and feels betrayed by—Mandela’s dalliances. Mandela
and the ANC had never concealed that they were as tight as thieves with
communists and terrorist regimes—Castro, Gaddafi, Arafat, North Korea
and Iran’s cankered Khameneis. Nevertheless, and at the time, public
intellectuals such as Mr. Kirchick thought nothing of delivering South
Africa into the hands of professed radical Marxist terrorists. Any one
suggesting such folly to the wise Margaret Thatcher risked taking a
handbagging. The Iron Lady ventured that grooming the ANC as South
Africa’s government-in-waiting was tantamount to “living in cloud-cuckoo
land.”
In The Afrikaners,
Giliomee also commends Mandela for his insight into Afrikaner
nationalism. Mandela, Giliomee contends, considers Afrikaner nationalism
“a legitimate indigenous movement, which, like African nationalism, had
fought British colonialism.” This is not persuasive. Forensic evidence
against this romanticized view is still being recovered from the dying
Afrikaner body politic. Judging by the ANC-led charge against the
country’s Afrikaner history and heroes—landmarks and learning
institutions—Mandela’s keen understanding of the Afrikaner was not
transmitted to the political party he created. Of late, local and
international establishment press has showered Mr. Mandela with more
praise for serving as the mighty Springboks’ mascot.
The Springboks are the South African national rugby team, and the
reigning world champions. Not that you’d guess it from the film
“Invictus,” Clint Eastwood’s “over-reverent biopic,” but Mandela has
never raised his authoritative voice against the ANC’s plans to force
this traditionally Afrikaner game to become racially representative.
Conversely, the absence of pale faces among the “Bafana Bafana,” South
Africa’s equally celebrated national soccer team, has failed to
similarly awaken the leader’s central planning impulses. Has Mandela
piped up about the ANC’s unremitting attacks on Afrikaans as the
language of instruction in Afrikaner schools and universities? Or about
the systematic culling of the white farming community? Has that paragon
of virtue, Mandela, called publicly for a stop to these pogroms?
Cancelled a birthday bash with “the hollow international jet
set”—“ex-presidents, vacuous and egomaniacal politicians, starlets,
coke-addled fashion models, intellectually challenged and morally
strained musicians”67? Called for a day of prayer instead (oops; he’s an
ex-communist)? No, no, and no again.
Bit by barbaric bit, South Africa is being dismantled by official racial
socialism, obscene levels of crime—organized and disorganized—AIDS,
corruption, and an accreting kleptocracy. In response, people are
“packing for Perth,” or as Mandela would say, the “traitors” pack for
Perth. The South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) was
suitably dismayed to discover that close to one million whites had
already left the country; the white population shrank from 5,215,000 in
1995 to 4,374,000 in 2005 (nearly one-fifth of this demographic).
Chief among the reasons cited for the exodus are violent crime and
affirmative action. Alas, as the flight from crime gathered steam, the
government stopped collecting the necessary emigration statistics.
(Correlation is not causation, but …) The same strategy was initially
adopted to combat out-of-control crime: suppress the statistics. The
exact numbers are, therefore, unknown. What is known is that most
émigrés are skilled white men. Also on record is Mandela’s message to
them: He has accused whites of betraying him and of being “traitors” and
“cowards.” Had “Madiba” wrestled with these defining issues, perhaps
he’d be deserving of the monstrous statues raised in his honor. These
too are in the socialist realist aesthetic tradition.
SALUTING THE ALPHA MALE
Back to the original question: Why have the leaders of the most powerful country on the continent (Mandela and Mbeki) succored the leader of the most corrupt (Mugabe)? The luminaries of Western café society were not the only ones to have given Mugabe a pass. So did blacks. “When Mugabe slaughtered 20,000 black people in southern Zimbabwe in 1983,” observes columnist Andrew Kenny, “nobody outside Zimbabwe, including the ANC, paid it the slightest attention. Nor did they care when, after 2000, he drove thousands of black farm workers out of their livelihoods and committed countless atrocities against his black population. But when he killed a dozen white farmers and pushed others off their farms, it caused tremendous excitement.”
When he socked it to Whitey, Mugabe cemented his status as hero to black
activists and their white sycophants in South Africa, the US, and
England.
“Whenever there is a South African radio phone-in programme [sic] on Zimbabwe, white South Africans and black Zimbabweans denounce Mugabe, and black South Africans applaud him. Therefore, one theory goes, Mbeki could not afford to criticise [sic] Mugabe,” who is revered, never reviled, by South African blacks.
Left-liberal journalist John Pilger and classical liberal columnist
Andrew Kenny concur: bar Zimbabweans, blacks across Africa and beyond
have a soft spot for Mugabe. While issuing the obligatory denunciations
of the despot, Pilger makes clear that Mugabe is merely a cog in the
real “silent war on Africa,” waged as it is by bourgeois, neo-colonial
businessmen and their brokers in western governments. From his comfy
perch in England, this Hugo Chávez supporter preaches against
colonialism and capitalism. Writing in the Mail & Guardian Online,
Pilger untangled the mystery of Mbeki and Mugabe’s cozy relationship:
“When Robert Mugabe attended the ceremony to mark Thabo Mbeki’s second
term as President of South Africa, the black crowd gave Zimbabwe’s
dictator a standing ovation.” This is a “symbolic expression of
appreciation for an African leader who, many poor blacks think, has
given those greedy whites a long-delayed and just come-uppance.”
South Africa’s strongmen are saluting their Alpha Male Mugabe by
implementing a slow-motion version of his program. One only need look at
the present in Zimbabwe “if you want to see the future of South
Africa,” ventures Kenny. When Mugabe took power in 1980, there were
about 300,000 whites in Zimbabwe. Pursuant to the purges conducted by
the leader and his people, fewer than 20,000 whites remain. Of these,
only 200 are farmers, five percent of the total eight years ago.”
Although most farmland in South Africa is still owned by whites, the
government intends to change the landowner’s landscape by 2014. “Having
so far acquired land on a ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ basis,
officials have signaled that large-scale expropriations are on the
cards.”
In South Africa, the main instrument of transformation is Black Economic
Empowerment (BEE). This requires whites to hand over big chunks of the
ownership of companies to blacks and to surrender top jobs to them.
Almost all the blacks so enriched belong to a small elite connected to
the ANC. BEE is already happening to mines, banks and factories. In
other words, a peaceful Mugabe-like program is already in progress in
South Africa.
Except that it’s not so peaceful. South Africans are dying in droves, a reality the affable Mandela, the imperious Mbeki, and their successor Zuma have accepted without piety and pity.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Today In History- Mozart Dies in 1791
Arguably one of the most talented and ingenious composers in the last 300 years. Here I present you a BBC documentary on the great composer.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
The Mound Builders- America's Little Know Civilization
Thought I provide you a semi-different route and provide my in depth concepts around various time periods or subjects..... with that I will be exploring (via video for now) the pre and post Columbian civilizations in the Americas
With that, here is a look at the mound builders, a little detailed American civilization that had influence over much of the interior around the Mississippi river basin of the what is now the US.
With that, here is a look at the mound builders, a little detailed American civilization that had influence over much of the interior around the Mississippi river basin of the what is now the US.
The 500 Nations of the America's- Full Version
This is the full version of the video I posted yesterday. I have not watch all six hours yet, but the first 2 hours were worth the time spent. I hope you learn as much as I did (do).
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
The 500 Nations of the Americas
Thought this documentary was poignant considering today marks the birth of Chief Crazy Horse.
Today in History- Chief Crazy Horse Born Circa 1840
I find it surprising that no one knows what he looks like, considering his notoriety and fame. Still, a sad chapter in the history of the United States.
Charlemagne Becomes Sole Monarch- Beginning the Holy Roman Empire.... Today in History
Charlemagne became king of what became knows as the Holy Roman Empire in 768, following the death of his father. However, Charlemagne or Charles the Great co-ruled with his brother King Carloman until 771, ascending the throne as sole ruler of the kingdom after his brother's death.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Cannot End On Such a Sour Note- Streetcar Named Desire Debuts On Broadway- Dec. 3, 1947
Cannot say I know much about theater history, but I do remember reading the play in high school/college. Although I do not have the performance, I do have the 1951 trailer below.
On This Day Dec. 3 1984- The Largest Industrial Accident To Date Devastates Bhopal, India
A news report showing the the long term effects of the accident.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Today in History.... Napoleon Crowns Himself Emperor (Fixed)
Took a break with the Thanksgiving holiday in Stateside. But here is today's moment in history, and a rather long one....
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)