|
User talk:Fainites/Sandbox
Military and political careerIn preparation for a quastorship, Vespasian needed to undertake two periods of service, one military and the other public, in the minor magistracies. Vespasian served in the military in Thrace for about 3 years. On his return to Rome in about 30, he obtained a post in the vigintivirate, the minor magistracies, most probably in one of the posts in charge of street cleaning. This was during the period of the ascendancy of Tiberius' minister Sejanus but there is no record of any significant involvement in events by Vespasian. After completion of a term in the Vigintivirate, Vespasian was entitled to stand for a quastorship; a senatorial office. However, lack of political or family influence meant that as quaestor, Vespasian served in one of the less sought after provincial posts in Crete, rather than as assistant to important men in Rome. The next important step on the cursus honorum was a praetorship, carrying the Imperium, but non-Patricians and the less well-connected needed to undertake at least one intermediary post as an aedile or tribune. Vespasian failed at his first attempt at an aedileship but was successful in his second attempt, becoming an aedile in 38. Despite his lack of significant family connections or success in office he achieved praetorship in either 39 or 40, at the youngest age permitted (30), during a period of political upheaval in the organisation of elections. One explanation for his success may have been his longstanding relationship with freedwoman Antonia Caenis, confidential secretary to the Emperor's grandmother and part of the circle of courtiers and servants round the Emperor. Upon the accession of Claudius as emperor in 41, Vespasian was appointed legate of Legio II Augusta, stationed in Germania, thanks to the influence of the Imperial freedman Narcissus. Invasion of BritanniaIn 43, Vespasian and the II Augusta participated in the Roman invasion of Britain, and he distinguished himself under the overall command of Aulus Plautius. After participating in crucial early battles on the rivers Medway and Thames, he was sent to reduce the south west, penetrating through the modern counties of Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall with the probable objectives of securing the south coast ports and harbours along with the tin mines of Cornwall and the silver and lead mines of Somerset. Vespasian marched from Noviomagus Reginorum (Chichester) to subdue the hostile Durotriges and Dumnonii tribes [10], captured twenty oppida (towns, or more probably hill forts, including Hod Hill and Maiden Castle in Dorset). He also invaded Vectis (the Isle of Wight), finally setting up a fortress and legionary headquarters at Isca Dumnoniorum (Exeter). These successes earned him triumphal regalia (ornamenta triumphalia) on his return to Rome.
File:Kandaurov Anton - Witch.jpg
sourcesDizdar is quoted in "Balkan Holocausts" by McDonald Google Translation of review of Kljakic book on Slovene ChetniksChetniks "publicist Slobodan Kljakic and retired Major General Mario F. Kranjca, published "Filip Visnjic", represented in the Hall "Drive" of the Belgrade Youth Center. The atmosphere in the hall was reminiscent of those from some previous time, and the best audience reaction showed that topics such as the Chetnik movement in Slovenia is still causing controversy. Kljakic read a letter from the absent co Kranjca who could not arrive because there is no travel documents, which says that this svedočanastvo, based on the confidential report of Duke and commander of the Chetnik movement in Slovenia Karl Novak and other documents from the archives of emigration, attracted great attention in Slovenia . The book was published in Slovenia last year under the title "Red Guards" and have already sold two items. Kranjac hopes the book will have the same readership in Serbia because it is aimed at the general public to learn more about one chapter a joint Serbian-Slovenian history. Speaking about the book from the perspective of the historian, Dr. Mile Bjelajac from the Institute of Contemporary History referred to the previous book Maria F. Kranjca "Slovenian military intelligence" and "Balkan military training ground" as a "prelude" to an act which clearly shows that the Ravna Gora movement of the Royal Army in the country had its Slovenian subsidiary which operated in the tradition of the Yugoslav idea He believes that the documents included in the integrated book very dragocna historical material which has so far been known only to a narrow circle of experts, although he does not agree with all the conclusions offered by the authors. Bjelajac is important for the book shows that the basis of the Ravna Gora movement was not great-jingoism, as communist propaganda claimed, but proceeded from the idea of Yugoslavia, and that crimes against other nations were not done by order of the supreme command, but these were acts of revenge of local commanders. Veselin Đuretić on the promotion of books analyzing the situation in Serbia and Slovenia to demonstrate that the Chetnik movement evolved in different directions in these two areas. Beta
The original title of the document is Ravnogorsko movement in Slovenia 1941-1945, but is a term unknown to younger readers. So we opted for a more known name - BLUE GARDA, as Slovenian Chetniks were also frequently named as plavogardisti, and their troops floating Guard. (Editors M. F. K., and S. K.) The label "floating Guard" is the result of the party terminology collaborationists in Slovenia 1914-1945 by the Comintern personnel brought from the Soviet Union. The term "floating Guard" were among the Liberation War and later discussed the Chetniks, mihailovićevci and ravnogorci. (Edited by M. F. K.) "In Slovenia, the Mihailović during this period sent his officer, Major Doe, who is in close cooperation with the occupier and kvizlinško White Guard organized the Chetniks under the name" floating Guard. " (The indictment against General Irritating Mihailović, commander of the Yugoslav army in the country, 1946) Chetnik ravnogorsko movement began as oficirsko movement. In Serbia, this was the beginning of even a "national movement" certainly was not in the next period of the war, when he left numerous traces of fratricidal war and collaboration with the Germans. (Edited by S. K.) Slovenian commitment has adopted the following commitment: the only legitimate armed force in Yugoslavia, the Yugoslav royal army under the command of General Irritating Mihailović. Neither party can have their special military formations ... Slovenian commitment by all means, moral and material support to the Royal Yugoslav Army. My basic idea was: an active struggle against occupation to the extent practicable and defense against partisans. (Major Karl Novak, in the report) The first detachment National Resistance, better known as a false "Styrian Battalion", was founded in 17th 5. 1942 in Bizovik and comprise of 17 members. Before leaving them, Major Smith said: "dodge the attack on the Partisans attacked but if you accept the fight. Do not attack the occupying unnecessary to save the people of the victim. With you as a nation and God, "The first combat action, the detachment conducted 25th May 1942 Kompolje around when he refused to attack the Dolenjska partisan detachments. This date should also be considered as the beginning of the Civil War in the Province. Of course they are not attacked by the occupier. Soon renamed the Legion of death and the decision of Slovenian commitments became involved with the Italians in the fight against partisans. (Edited by M. F. K.) "The Italian General Gambari in August 1943 I was told that the Italians tolerate blue Guard that is under their control to be served. Continental Guard is only a small detachment of General Mihailović četniški. Guard Commander Major blue Novak subsequently collaborated with the Germans, and his successor Colonel Prezlja few times I met with General Rösenerju. "(Divisional General Leon Rupnik - The Lion, the chief inspector Slovenian Home Guard, a statement in court, 1946) I believe that Slovenia ideological collaboration from both sides did not start with the April 1941 war, but has a prehistory that we can find in the archives of the Communist International, the British SOE, the Vatican and other factors. Was dominated by the struggle between communism and protikomunizmom. (Edited by M. F. K.) Germans in the autumn of 1944 closed a number of British agents in Slovenia and Italy. Allied colleagues in Italy, among them painter Zoran Music, Hrvoje Maister, son of General Maister, ing. Ivo Gregorc, MD. Ivo Bole and others who have been discharged to the Dachau and Buchenwald, you still have to earn rehabilitation and recognition, as we did with tigrovci and "English" paratroopers. (Edited by M. F. K.) Historians are obliged to finally write a true history of the operation JVvD and partisans. It is necessary to introduce regular JVvD as Allied troops, partisans as a paramilitary Comintern. (Captain Šušterič Uros, a member of the Bureau Ravnogorskega movement Cica charm and coordinator for Slovenia) Kolaboranti occupier can not be the liberators of the Slovenian nation! (Edited by M. F. K.) SchoreSecondary source re Schore/neurological base for AT etc
Historical criticism. Rejection of this tenet began before attachment theory’s final formulation by Bowlby, and occurred in response to his 1951 report about the consequences of maternal deprivation. Wootton (1962) commented with concern on the fact that “[i]nstitutionalized children are not a random sample of the population of their age” (p. 259). In addition, she pointed out that some individuals have poor early attachment experiences but no serious later pathology, and others develop delinquent or disturbed behavior despite what appears to be good experiences with caregivers in early life. Recent criticism. Current thinking about attachment theory appears to stress this tenet, with particular interest in pathological outcomes from poor early experiences. Several categories of non-secure attachment have been created, and extensive work has investigated their predictive value for later pathology (see Fonagy et al., 2002 ). This type of work has generally concluded that less-than-ideal early attachment status is correlated with later emotional problems. However, the extent to which the relationship is causal is obviously unclear, as the social setting that helped produce a poor attachment status may continue to work to encourage delinquency or mental illness. Related evidence. Current work on issues like resilience (Kaufman, 2008) and temperament (Laible, Panfile, & Makariev, 2008) shows the potential impact of individual differences on attachment-related outcomes; the work of Rutter (2002), noted earlier, has stressed the interaction of multiple risk factors in the creation of pathology. The study of pathological outcomes has a particular importance for the testing of attachment theory. In most aspects of attachment research, ethical and practical considerations make it impossible to test the effects of independent variables by the use of randomized controlled trials. Thus comparisons between groups who have had different early experiences are always affected by possible confounded variables, and the causes of outcomes are not clear. However, interventions can and should be tested with randomized designs, and the results of such studies may provide confirmation or disconfirmation of aspects of attachment theory. An alternative view of Tenet 11. A revised view of this tenet has been presented in the form of a “modern attachment theory” (A.N. Schore, 2000; J.R. Schore & A.N. Schore, 2008). A.N. Schore referred to this proposed update as “regulation theory.” He has focused on the development of “a pragmatic framework for models of both psychopathogenesis and the change process in psychotherapy” (J.R. Schore & A.N. Schore, 2008, p. 10). The proposed framework suggests that “attachment communications are critical to the development of structural right brain neurobiological systems involved in processing of emotion, modulation of stress, self-regulation, and therefore the functional origins of the bodily-based implicit self” (p. 10). Schore’s regulation theory has two major components: (a) the tenet that attachment and its regulatory functions are based on, and also shape, important aspects of the right hemisphere of the brain; and (b) the tenet that early caregiver–child interactions such as mutual gaze episodes create the experience of shared affect and thus dyadic regulation of emotion. Schore has proposed that the regulatory processes of affect synchrony that create states of positive arousal and … modulate states of negative arousal are the fundamental building blocks of attachment and its associated emotions, and resilience in the face of stress and novelty is an ultimate indicator of attachment security. (J.R. Schore & A.N. Schore, 2008, p. 11) Neuroscientific claims. The “Decade of the Brain” has brought into high fashion the use of neurological explanations for psychological phenomena. The fact that these are sometimes inadequately supported by evidence has been reflected in such statements as the Santiago Declaration (Santiago Declaration, 2007), which includes the opinions of noted early interventionists and argues that our present knowledge of neurological development is not adequate support for claims of causal connections between brain mechanisms and emotional or cognitive events. Certainly, evidence from direct measurement of developmental change in young human brains is sparse, even in the era of imaging techniques. As Zeanah and Smyke (2008) have specifically pointed out, “Little … is understood about the neural substrate underlying attachment processes” (p. 230). Earlier in this paper, I argued against generalization of data about attachment from one species to another. What about information from pathology? Can this be generalized to support a view of normal early development? In this case, a positive answer would depend on the extent to which early development and later pathological events actually resemble each other. This resemblance determines whether the analogy is a true or a false one. With respect to these issues, A.N. Schore’s speculation about right-brain functioning is on shaky evidentiary ground. Passing over the well-known fact of the holistic functioning of an intact brain, we can note that a careful parsing of Schore’s sources (J.R. Schore & A.N. Schore, 2008) suggests a lack of due attention to some important points. In addition to a number of references to Schore’s own publications as evidence for specialized attachment-related right-hemisphere functioning, Schore and Schore cited about 10 sources as indicating empirical evidence for the postulated connection. Of these, two (Ovtscharoff & Braun, 2001; Sullivan & Gratton, 2002) involved work on rodents, which was presented as supportive evidence without any textual reference to the use of data from non-humans. One paper (Prodan, Orbelo, Testa, & Ross, 2001) described hemispheric differences in processing upper and lower parts of a facial display, and concluded that lower facial displays are preferentially processed by the left hemisphere and upper facial displays by the right hemisphere; Schore and Schore mentioned only the right-hemisphere data. A fourth paper (Le Grand, Mondloch, Maurer, & Brent, 2003) discussed facial processing deficits in persons for whom a cataract in early infancy had prevented stimulation of the right visual cortex; Schore and Schore cited this paper as evidence for the right-brain hypothesis without noting that the teratogenic or genetic event that triggered the cataract might also have caused atypical brain development, thus confounding environmental and biological factors. Much of the evidence Schore has presented in support of his view of the role of the right brain in attachment can thus be regarded as only weakly relevant. However, such a conclusion does not amount to rejection of the entire “modern attachment theory,” as the remainder of the theory can operate independently of a specific brain mechanism. Regulation theory. Schore’s “modern attachment theory” focuses on important events of the first months of life, especially experiences based on the caregiver’s abilities to regulate the infant’s state of arousal. Feeding, comforting, and engagement or disengagement from play are all potential means of regulation, but they function appropriately only if the caregiver correctly reads the infant’s cues, or repairs communicative errors effectively. Schore (J.R. Schore & A.N. Schore, 2008) proposed that the dyadic communication and regulation shown by infant and mother are paralleled by those of the patient–therapist dyad, and that the attitudes developed during early dyadic experiences are part of the self and re-emerge in therapy. In Schore’s view, “the attachment between therapist and client is established over time, allowing for the expression of experiences that resonate with the original infant–mother intersubjective history of the first two years” (J.R. Schore & A.N. Schore, 2008, p. 16). Schore’s discussion of dyadic and self-regulation as the essential aspect of attachment is well grounded in research on early infant–mother interactions among humans and thus fills a gap in Bowlby’s attachment theory, which does little to describe the events that precede the emergence of clear-cut attachment behavior relatively late in the first year. Schore’s theory can be used to explain safe haven and secure base behaviors as efforts to maintain emotional regulation in the face of experienced threats or of a conflict between exploratory and security motivation. However, Schore’s regulation theory does little to explain important points of development that are both easily observable and discussed by Bowlby. For example, how does regulation theory deal with the rather abrupt re-organization of responses to strangers normally seen toward the end of the first year? Schore has referred to the development of relational systems as experience-dependent (J.R. Schore & A.N. Schore, 2008), but abrupt re-organizations would be more probable in experience-expectant plasticity (Greenough, Black, & Wallace, 1987); indeed, Cicchetti (1991) referred to the idea that “certain types of ‘experience expectant’ inputs by caregivers are critical … for the full maturation of neuroregulatory systems” (p. 273). How does regulation theory deal with developmental changes that form an important part of attachment theory, such as preschoolers’ negotiation of separation and older children’s goal-corrected partnerships with others? These steps between early infancy and adult attachment status appear to be neglected by regulation theory.
Chunk from old talkpage purporting to be Karchmar. Don't know if accurate or notKarchmar, Lucien, Draža Mihailović and the Rise of the Četnik Movement, 1941-1942, Garland Publishing, New York, 1987 [1973].(Pages 395-398)
Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, .........Serbia under German occupation was the territory covering most of present-day Central Serbia, the northern part of Kosovo (around Kosovska Mitrovica), and the Banat region,[11] in which Nazi Germany installed a puppet state during the occupation of Yugoslavia in World War II. The entity lasted from 1941 to 1944. The Serbian civil administration during that period included two puppet governments: the short lived Commissary Government (Serbian: Комесарска влада, Komesarska vlada) of Milan Aćimović and the Government of National Salvation (Влада Националног Спаса, Vlada Nacionalnog Spasa) of Milan Nedić, from August 1941 to 1944. Because the latter lasted for most of the period of occupation, the puppet state became known as Nedić's Serbia,[7] and its second government as the Nedić regime.[12] The entity The Serbian civil administration claimed that Nedić's Serbia was an independent state though it was de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији), established in 1941, after several months of occupation.[13][6][14] Serbian collaborationist forces supported by the Serbian government were the ZBOR party, the Serbian Volunteer Corps led by Dimitrije Ljotić and the rogue Chetnik faction of Kosta Pećanac. It is estimated that approximately 80,000 people were killed from 1941 to 1944 in concentration camps in Nedić's Serbia.[15] Serbia was proclaimed one of the Judenfrei (free of Jews) countries in Europe.[16][17][18][19][20] InvolvedDetails of activity on Balkans pages since January 2011 in chronological order. The purpose of this was a brief outline of my activities on Balkans pages since January 2011, also showing where possible how I arrived at a particular article. In view of DIREKTORs allegations I have also indicated where he is not a participant. He is one of the participating editors unless the entry says otherwise. Other frequent participants were FkpCascais (until recently), PANONIAN, PRODUCER and WustenFuchs. Once I had edited an article or talkpage it remained on my watchlist. Once it was on my watchlist I checked out any posts. Some of the disputes repeatedly returned, such as the Yugoslav Front naming/infobox disputes, the Serbia under German occupation naming disputes. Some issues like the issue of collaboration by Chetniks/Mihailovic spread from one page to another, including editors talkpages, and never really die down. Some pages I was asked to intervene on. Some disputes I found myself by looking around or by noticing a reference to it on a talkpage, as the same groups of editors tended to pursue the same or similar arguments from article to article and on each others talkpages. Once I realised Infoboxes were flashpoints for nationalist warring I checked them all out. Quite often, if I stopped an edit war or helped resolve an issue on one page the same group would go and edit war and argue on another page.
NB: no involvement by DIREKTOR though he came and commented on my talkpage afterwards.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
