1901: Japanese Emperor Hirohito born in Tokyo (died on 7 January 1989)
1919: birth of actor and film-maker Gérard Oury (died on 20 July 2006)
1930: birth of actor Jean Rochefort (died on 9 October 2017)
1945: liberation of the Dachau concentration camp
1945: French women vote for the first time in municipal elections
1968: The Shadoks make their first appearance on French television
1970: Women admitted to Polytechnique
1980: Death of film-maker Alfred Hitchcock
1991: A cyclone kills 139,000 people in Bangladesh
1992: Race riots begin in Los Angeles (53 deaths)
2002: France solemnly hands over to South Africa the remains, kept at the Musée de l'Homme, of Saartjie Baartman, nicknamed the ‘Hottentot Venus’, who was exhibited in London and Paris between 1810 and 1815.
2011: Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding at Westminster Abbey
It's their birthday
Zizi Jeanmaire, dancer and singer born in 1924
Daniel Day-Lewis, Irish-British actor born in 1957
Uma Thurman, American actress born in 1970
André Agassi, tennis player born in 1970
I don't think it is useful to have a thread on this with daily post about it. Wikipedia is a Western tool, which gets rewritten according to the current narrative. It therefore omits many things that happens outside of the 'Garden' perspective or it is twisted. For those interested, they can go to wikipedia themselves, like it is done with other sites. If you find something you find interesting and which you would like to discuss, then the possibility is always there to open a thread on a topic or to find if there isn't already a thread discussing the topic and where new input can be added included what you think about it yourself.It’s of course not very deep, but very good for reminders, helpful in mentally organizing a timeline, and primes for deeper research.
So I thought, why not multiply this knowledge here?
Hmm that is interesting. Not sure what to make of it. Any clues?29 April
More from Le Figaro, French newspaper:
No mention of Joan of Arc.
I don't think it is useful to have a thread on this with daily post about it. Wikipedia is a Western tool, which gets rewritten according to the current narrative. It therefore omits many things that happens outside of the 'Garden' perspective or it is twisted. For those interested, they can go to wikipedia themselves, like it is done with other sites. If you find something you find interesting and which you would like to discuss, then the possibility is always there to open a thread on a topic or to find if there isn't already a thread discussing the topic and where new input can be added included what you think about it yourself.
Nope.Hmm that is interesting. Not sure what to make of it. Any clues?
Nope.
The bold part was my first thought.I don't think it is useful to have a thread on this with daily post about it. Wikipedia is a Western tool, which gets rewritten according to the current narrative. It therefore omits many things that happens outside of the 'Garden' perspective or it is twisted. For those interested, they can go to wikipedia themselves, like it is done with other sites. If you find something you find interesting and which you would like to discuss, then the possibility is always there to open a thread on a topic or to find if there isn't already a thread discussing the topic and where new input can be added included what you think about it yourself.
No, I didn't mean to say that. I just noticed it wasn't there.Could be because it’s pre-1900. Do you mean to say the info may be faulty?
D’accord. I was looking for a response, and here it is.The bold part was my first thought.
I personally get this sort of thing from a radio show.
No, I couldn't, because that's not what happened.D’accord. I was looking for a response, and here it is.
When you mentioned the Joanne D’Arc info not being there, I thought that might be the spark of a discussion, but now the impression I get is the opposite. I may be wrong, but I get passive-aggressive vibes, if there’s any value to this kind of honesty. Coulda just said you didn’t care for it right from the start, dude.
Anyways, the response is clear and appreciated. Won’t be posting the anniversaries anymore.
It sounds so innocent the way it is written and as if it contains objective knowledge, but it isn't. It is without context. It was a US interventionist attack on a sovereign country for protecting US interests and to make sure a US puppet would rule there. The part "to stop a Communist revolution", is just the outward cover story. So the US was not the white Knights coming in to save the poor people of that country but to make sure they stayed enslaved.1965 - US troops land on Dominican Republic to stop a Communist revolution
Was it similar? How was is similar and how wasn't it similar? Is there any basis for calling it 'awfully similar' at all?1992 - Las Angeles Riots. Awfully similar to Black Lives Matter riots.