Miguel’s Weblog

Hoje deparei com este post do Paulo Carvalho. Os meus parabéns. Subscrevo o seu post na totalidade.

São João do Estoril

Upload feito originalmente por Marco Coelho

This is one of the rocks that I used to dive when I was on my teens. Nice memories!

Upload feito originalmente por joaofreitas

… que saudades!

At my grandparents’ place it was like this… how I miss that!

Quando não telefonamos a dar notícias é porque não queremos saber da família e dos amigos, quando telefonamos é sempre “olha desculpa mas agora tenho que fazer, telefona depois”. Depois quando vamos de férias e queremos visitar alguém nunca dá jeito, está sempre tudo ocupado a ver a novela, a ir ao café ou ao Shopping, depois se vamos embora sem a visita da praxe fica tudo ofendido.

Dá cá uma vontade de telefonar e de ir a Portugal de férias… (não sou o único a dizer isto)!

On this Sabath Day I would like to share with you the 178th Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that took place last weekend in Salt Lake City, USA.

By David Haldane, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

The Mormon Church has to be among the most outgoing on earth; in recent years its leaders have reached out to, among others, Latinos, Koreans, Catholics and Jews.

One of the most enthusiastic responses, however, has come from what some might consider a surprising source: U.S. Muslims.

“We are very aware of the history of Mormons as a group that was chastised in America,” says Maher Hathout, a senior advisor to the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles. “They can be a good model for any group that feels alienated.”

Which perhaps explains an open-mosque day held last fall at the Islamic Center of Irvine. More than half the guests were Mormons.

“A Mormon living in an Islamic society would be very comfortable,” said Steve Young, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attending the event.

The sentiment is echoed by Muslims. “When I go to a Mormon church I feel at ease,” said Haitham Bundakji, former chairman of the Islamic Society of Orange County. “When I heard the president [of LDS] speak a few years ago, if I’d closed my eyes I’d have thought he was an imam.”

Though the relationship has raised eyebrows and provided ammunition for critics of both religions, Mormons and Muslims have deepening ties in the United States.

What binds them has little to do with theology: Mormons venerate Jesus as interpreted by founder Joseph Smith, while Muslims view Muhammad as god’s prophet. Based on shared values and a sense of isolation from mainstream America, the connection was intensified by 9/11 and cemented by the Southeast Asia tsunami. It is especially evident in Southern California, with large Mormons and Muslim populations.

The Mormon Church has become the biggest contributor to Buena Park-based Islamic Relief, touted by its administrators as the West’s largest Muslim-based charity. Relief officials say the church has donated $20 million in goods and services since the 2004 tsunami, equal to about 20% of the charity’s annual budget.

Brigham Young University in Utah, the church’s major institution of higher learning, features what is thought to be one of the world’s best programs for translating classic Islamic works from Arabic to English. Though created primarily for academic purposes, the results have impressed Muslims flattered by the close attention.

“It shows they have a keen interest in the Muslim world,” said Levent Akbarut, a member of the Islamic Congregation of La Cañada-Flintridge.

And Mormons and Muslims say they often are co-hosts of educational and social programs at which, though some may be angling for long-term doctrinal influence, very little open proselytizing of each other seems to take place. “We have a very close and friendly relationship,” said Keith Atkinson, West Coast LDS spokesman.Mormons “explain our faith to anyone who will listen” and “treat Muslims like anybody else,” said Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, one of the church’s top governing bodies in Salt Lake City. But Oaks added that “we don’t preach to people who would be disenfranchised” or likely offended by the effort.

Arnold H. Green, a history professor at BYU, has traced how early Mormons in the 19th century were hounded by accusations that church founder Smith was the American Muhammad. The first Mormons angrily denied any connection to the Muslim prophet but gradually accepted some comparisons, particularly that both religions were founded by post-Christian prophets with strong sectarian views. “As the church grew into a global faith,” Green wrote in a 2001 essay, “its posture toward Islam became . . . more positive” until, today, “the two faiths have become associated in several ways, including Mormonism’s being called the Islam of America.”

Both religions strongly emphasize family. They tend toward patriarchy, believing in feminine modesty, chastity and virtue. And although Islam discourages dancing involving both sexes, Mormons report that church-sponsored “modesty proms” commonly draw Islamic youths.

Both faiths adhere to religion-based health codes, including prohibitions against alcohol, but Mormons and Muslims share something more: membership in quickly growing minority religions that many other Americans have sometimes viewed with suspicion and scorn.

“We both come from traditions where there has been persecution in the past and continues to be prejudice,” said Steve Gilliland, LDS director of Muslim relations for Southern California. “That helps us Mormons identify with Muslims.”

A recent national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that although a thin majority of those polled expressed positive opinions of Muslims and Mormons, the number was significantly less than those favoring Roman Catholics or Jews.

More than half the respondents said they had little or no awareness of the precepts and practices of either faith. But 45% saw Islam as more likely than other religions to encourage violence, and 31% said that Mormons weren’t Christian.

Armand L. Mauss, a Mormon and professor emeritus of sociology at Washington State University specializing in religious movements, said that unlike mainstream Christians and Jews, Muslims and Mormons “tend to make fairly stringent demands for religious conformity on their members.” These practices, he said, include discouraging marriage outside the religion and observing dietary laws, such as the Mormon prohibition against tobacco, alcohol and caffeine.

But the clincher, according to Mauss, is that both communities “have been stung in recent years by the recurrence of scandals over which they have no control.” For Muslims, the obvious example is 9/11.

Mário , Crespo, Jornalista

“… Isto é o fim do Mundo”.

Pivot

Uma professora tirou o telemóvel a uma aluna de 9º ano pois esta estaria a brincar com ele durante a aula.

Não há respeito pelos professores e funcionários. Não há sanções apropriadas para quem tem extrema falta de educação e violência. NÃO ACONTECE NADA.

Fonte: Democracia em Portugal

Agora a minha pergunta à Sra. Ministra: “Qual é avaliação que espera esta professora? Será que ela age mal ou é a aluna? Como é que a Sra. reagiria nesta situação? No meu tempo isto daria suspensão ou até expulsão.“

Source: Wikipedia

The German exodus from Eastern Europe refers to the exodus of ethnic German populations from lands to the east of present-day Germany and Austria. The exodus began in the aftermath of World War I and was implicated in the rise of Nazism. It culminated in expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe in the aftermath of World War II. These were part of negotiated agreements between the victorious Allies to redraw national borders and arrange for “orderly population transfers” to remove ethnic minorities that were viewed as “troublesome”.

Background

Migrations that took place over more than a millennium led to pockets of Germans living throughout Eastern Europe as far east as Russia. By the sixteenth century, much of Pomerania, Prussia, the Sudetenland, Bessarabia, Galicia, Alto Adige/South Tyrol, Carniola, and Lower Styria had numerous German-majority towns and villages. By the early nineteenth century, every city of even modest size as far east as the Volga had a German quarter and a Jewish quarter. Travellers along any road would pass through, for example, a German village, then a Czech village, then a Polish village, etc., depending on the region.

The rise of nationalism in Europe from the middle of the nineteenth century spread the concept of a “people” who shared a common bond through race, religion, language, and culture, and had a right to form its own state. In these circumstances, various situations could lead to conflict. One such was when a nation claimed territorial rights to land outside its borders on the basis of a common bond with the people living on that land. Another was when a minority ethnic group sought to secede from a state, either to form an independent nation or join another nation with whom they felt stronger ties. A third source of conflict was the desire of some nations to expel people from their territories on the grounds that those people did not share a common bond with the majority in that nation.

Territorial claims of German nationalists

By World War I, there were isolated groups of Germans or so-called Schwaben as far southeast as the Bosphorus (Turkey), Georgia, and Azerbaijan. After the war, Germany’s and Austria-Hungary’s loss of territory and the rise of communism in the Soviet Union meant that more Germans than ever constituted sizable minorities in various countries.

German nationalists used the existence of large German minorities in other countries as a basis for territorial claims. Many of the propaganda themes of the Nazi regime against Czechoslovakia and Poland claimed that the ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) in those territories were persecuted.

The Nazis negotiated a number of population transfers with Joseph Stalin and others with Benito Mussolini so that both Germany and the other country would increase their ethnic homogeneity. However, these population transfers were not sufficient to appease the demands of the Nazis. The “Heim ins Reich” (Home into the Country) rhetoric of the Nazis over the continued disjoint status of exclaves such as Danzig and Königsberg was an agitating factor in the politics leading up to World War II, and is considered by many to be among the major causes of Nazi aggression and thus the war. Adolf Hitler used these issues as a pretext for waging aggressive wars against Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Support of Nazi invasion by German population in invaded countries

As Nazi Germany invaded first Czechoslovakia and later Poland and other European nations, some members of the ethnic German minorities in those countries aided the invading forces and the subsequent Nazi occupation. These acts would cause an enmity against Germans, and later be used as part of the justification for the expulsions.

Czechoslovakia

According to the 1920 constitution, German minority rights were to be protected and their educational and cultural institutions were to be preserved in proportion to the population. Local hostilities were engendered, however, by policies intended to protect the security of the Czechoslovak state: border forestland, considered by some to be the most ancient Sudeten German national territory, was expropriated for security reasons, and Czech soldiers, policemen and bureaucrats were stationed in areas inhabited only by Germans. There were also economic tensions, as Sudeten Germans suffered more during the Great Depression, because they were more dependent on foreign trade and economic conditions in Germany.

Sudeten German nationalist sentiment affected their politics during the early years of the republic. In 1926, however, Chancellor Gustav Stresemann of Germany advised Sudeten Germans to cooperate actively with the Czechoslovak government. In consequence, most Sudeten German parties changed from negativism to activism, and a number of Sudeten Germans accepted cabinet posts. By 1929, only a small number of Sudeten German deputies - most of them members of the German National Party (propertied classes) and the Sudeten Nazi Party (Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei) - remained in opposition.

On October 1, 1933, Konrad Henlein created a new political organization, the Sudeten German Home Front which professed loyalty to the Czechoslovak state but championed decentralization. It absorbed most former German nationals and Sudeten Nazis. In 1935 the Sudeten German Home Front became the Sudeten German Party (Sudetendeutsche Partei, SdP) and embarked on an active propaganda campaign. In the May election the SdP won more than 60 percent of the Sudeten German vote at the expense of the German Agrarians, Christian Socialists, and Social Democrats who each lost approximately half of their constituencies. ^[1]

The SdP became the fulcrum of German nationalist forces. The party represented itself as striving for a just settlement of Sudeten German claims within the framework of Czechoslovak democracy. Henlein, however, maintained secret contacts with Nazi Germany and received material aid from Berlin. The SdP endorsed the idea of a führer and mimicked Nazi methods with banners, slogans, and uniformed troops. Concessions offered by the Czechoslovak government, including the transfer of Sudeten German officials to Sudeten German areas and possible participation of the SdP in the cabinet, were rejected. By 1937, most SdP leaders supported Hitler’s pan-German objectives. ^[2]

Poland

Some ethnic Germans living in Poland were activists in the groups Deutscher Volksverband and Jungdeutscher Partei, and before the war opposed any form of co-existence with the Polish state, and condemned those ethnic Germans who spoke Polish or had contact with Polish culture. Polish national events were boycotted and ethnic Germans who did not act in the required manner were branded as traitors and renegades by these organizations. Such organizations also distributed propaganda films and brochures containing inflammatory anti-Polish statements.

One historian estimates that 25% of the ethnic German population in Poland belonged to Nazi-sponsored organizations that supported the Nazi conquest of Poland.^[3] Selbstschutz and German nationalist organizations created in Poland and Czechoslovakia by Germans took an active part in various actions (sabotage, etc.) which targeted the Polish population. For example, Selbstschutz took part in and itself conducted mass executions of Poles in Operation Tannenberg. The Selbstschutze counted 82,000 members out of the pre-war ethnic German population of Poland of 1,371,000.^[4]

Polish historians estimate that, in areas that were incorporated into the Third Reich, 40,000 Poles were murdered and 20,000 were sent to concentration camps during the so-called Intelligenzaktion, in which Selbstschutze also took part. Only a few percent of those sent to concentration camps survived.

In the early days of the occupation, 90% of those who were sent to concentration camps were targeted by ethnic Germans ^[5] The overwhelming majority of those victims were selected by local ethnic Germans who identified them as enemies of the Reich ^[6]. Ethnic Germans living in Poland made lists of Poles targeted for execution, as well as hunting down and illegally imprisoning Poles.^[6]

At the time of the expulsions, many German nationals and ethnic Germans still supported Nazism. For example, according to polls conducted among Germans in the American Zone of Occupation from November 1945 through December 1947, the percentage of the German population that supported the view that “National Socialism was a good idea, but badly implemented” averaged 47%, while in August, 1947, the percentage increased to 55% ^[7]

Nazi-Soviet population transfers

Main article: Nazi-Soviet population transfers.

Germans were resettled from territories which were occupied by the Soviet Union in 1939 and 1940 as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939, notably from Bessarabia and the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia, all of which had large German minorities. The majority of the Baltic Germans had already been resettled in late 1939, prior to the occupation of Estonia and Latvia by the Soviet Union in June, 1940. These Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans) were then resettled in place of expelled Poles both in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany and in Zamość County in line with the Generalplan Ost.

The Allies decide the postwar German-Polish border

As it became evident that the Allies were going to defeat Nazi Germany decisively, the question arose as to how to redraw the borders of Eastern European countries after the war. In the context of those decisions, the problem arose of what to do about ethnic minorities within the redrawn borders.

Winston Churchill was convinced that the only way to alleviate tensions between the two populations was the transfer of people, to match the national borders. As he stated in a speech to the House of Commons in 1944, “Expulsion is the method which, insofar as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble… A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions.”

The Yalta Conference

The final decision to move Poland’s boundary westward was made by the US, Britain, and the USSR at the Yalta Conference, shortly before the end of the war. The precise location of the border was left open; the western Allies also accepted in principle the Oder River as the future western border of Poland and population transfer as the way to prevent future border disputes. The open question was whether the border should follow the eastern or western Neisse rivers, and whether Stettin, the traditional seaport of Berlin, should remain German or be included in Poland.

Originally, Germany was to retain Stettin while the Poles were to annex East Prussia with Königsberg. ^[8]. However, Stalin eventually decided that he wanted Königsberg as a year-round warm water port for the Soviet Navy, and argued that the Poles should receive Stettin instead. The wartime Polish government in exile had little to say in these decisions.^[9]

Poland’s old and new borders, 1945

The Potsdam Conference

At the Potsdam Conference, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union placed the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line (In Poland, these were referred to by the Polish Communist government as the “Western Territories” or “Regained Territories“) as formally under Polish administrative control. It was anticipated that a final peace treaty would follow shortly and either confirm this border or determine whatever alterations might be agreed upon.

In effect, the final agreements compensated Poland with 112,000 km² of former German territories for the 187,000 km² located east of the Curzon line, which would now be part of the USSR. The northeastern third of East Prussia was directly annexed by the Soviet Union and remains part of Russia today.

It was also decided that all ethnic Germans remaining in the new and old Polish territories should be expelled, to prevent any claims of minority rights or possible land claims by any future German government. Among the provisions of the Potsdam Conference was a section that provided for the “orderly transfer of German populations”. The specific wording of this section was as follows:

Evacuation and Flight

Some German plans for evacuation of the civilian population in some areas were prepared well in advance. Others were haphazard or purposefully neglected. The evacuation plan for some parts of East Prussia was completed and ready for implementation by the middle of 1944. It comprised mostly general plans for each province and there were some detailed plans for some cities and towns. Those detailed plans which existed consisted of five parts, including a general outline and listing of concentration points, preparation tasks for local administrations, specific instructions and detailed scenarios for the two phases of evacuation. Separate plans were prepared for some industrial plants. The plans covered not only the evacuation of civilians, but also livestock, and plans existed to destroy the industry and infrastructure.

Despite these preparations, Nazi authorities were late in ordering the evacuation of areas close to the advancing front, before they were overrun by the Red Army. This was mainly due to: Nazi fanaticism and irrationality; a valid paranoia about the fatal consequences of even giving the appearance of being ‘defeatist’ (and even discussing evacuation was definitely viewed as defeatist); and Hitler’s insistence on holding every square metre of territory. About 50% of the Germans residing in areas annexed by Germany during WWII and almost 100% residing in unannexed occupied areas were evacuated. ^[10] While around 7.5 million Germans ^[11] (both “Imperial Germans” and “Ethnic Germans“) were either evacuated or otherwise escaped East Prussia and the previously occupied territories, many lost their lives either because of severe winter conditions, poor evacuation organization, or military operations.

Expulsion

Main article: Expulsion of Germans after World War II.

Many of the remaining German inhabitants were either expelled or fled from present-day Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, today’s Kaliningrad Oblast, and other East European countries. Some reports indicate that up to 16.5 million Germans were forcibly deported. More concrete statistics regarding those who emigrated or were expelled indicate a figure closer to 12 million.^[12] Those who fled in fear of the Red Army were subsequently banned from returning. Some ethnic Germans were expelled because of their Nazi activities during the war, yet the single most common reason for their expulsion was their German ethnicity. They were sent to makeshift camps or cities in eastern and western Germany, and Austria, generally according to their Landsmannschaft.

According to some German sources, more than 2.5 million lost their lives during this process. Other German, Czech, and Polish sources give a much lower estimate (Czech historians arguing that most of the estimated losses stemmed from the deaths of soldiers killed at the front). Over the course of the sixty years since the end of the war, estimates of total deaths of German civilians have ranged from 500,000 to as high as 3 million. Although the German government’s official estimate of deaths due to the expulsions stood at 2.2 million for several decades, recent analyses have led some historians to conclude that the actual number of deaths attributable to the expulsions was actually much lower—in the range of 500,000 to 1.1 million. The higher figures, up to 3.2 million, typically include -all- war-related deaths of ethnic Germans between 1939-45, including those who served in the German armed forces.^[13] The debate about the number of deaths and their cause continues to be the subject of heated controversy.

The population transfer itself included about: 688,000 from Poland (1938 borders); 2,275,200 from East Prussia; 5,123,200 from the pre-war areas of Germany proper (mostly Silesia and Pomerania) incorporated into Poland (see Oder-Neisse Line); 3,000,400 from Czechoslovakia; around 169,500 from the Soviet Union; 253,000 from Hungary; 213,000 from Romania; and another 297,500 from Yugoslavia. However, in no East European nation were all ethnic Germans forced to leave. Census figures in 1950 place the total number of ethnic Germans still living in Eastern Europe at approximately 2.6 million, about 12 percent of the pre-war total.^[14]

The expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was tolerated by the Potsdam Agreement, which stated that the process should be undertaken in a “humane” and “orderly” manner, though it failed to specify detailed rules for the population transfers, or supervision of the process to prevent crimes against the transferred populations.

Valdis Lumans indicates that no ethnic German expulsions would have occurred at all, except for the barbaric occupation policies imposed on most of Europe by Nazi Germany, which included the expulsion or slave-labor pressganging of non-Germans from most of these areas.^[15] Along similar lines, Prauser and Rees assert that the “charge laid against the German population in the Eastern European states was that of disloyalty and of supporting the destruction of the states of which they were members and of collaboration with the German occupying forces.”^[16]

In The Volksdeutsche of Eastern Europe and the Collapse of the Nazi Empire, 1944-1945, Doris Bergen analyzes the immediate and long-term effects of population policy on the ethnic Germans of eastern Europe which, in her view, was disastrous. Bergen notes that the ethnic Germans of this area found their fate intimately linked to, and affected by, the German war effort and the regime’s genocidal policy in more than material ways. Not only did Nazi resettlement policy cause a permanent shift of population transfers and ethnic boundaries, it also caused the erasure of ethnic coexistence. During the earlier years of the war, the Nazis emphasized racial hostility and competition, but at war’s end, when it was fairly clear that the Germans would lose, ethnic Germans who had benefited from the earlier policy simply refused to abandon these ideas and found themselves, as a result, struggling to find a satisfactory place within their new communities.^[17]

Continued Emigration of Germans from Eastern Europe