text:
La colonie de Plymouth (en anglais Plymouth Colony) était une colonie anglaise qui exista de 1620 à 1691. Elle fut la seconde colonie permanente anglaise après Jamestown en Virginie (fondée en 1607, mais qui disparut à la fin du siècle, en 1699, à la suite d'un incendie), la première colonie permanente de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, et la première colonie anglaise fondée par des dissidents anglais, les Pères pèlerins, arrivés en Amérique du Nord à bord du Mayflower. À son apogée, elle occupait la majeure partie du sud-est de l'actuel État du Massachusetts.
 Histoire
 Les premières explorations
 Avant l'arrivée des premiers colons européens, Jean Cabot avait fait la découverte de Terre-Neuve en 1497, qui donna aux Anglais un droit de passage sur la côte est de l'Amérique du Nord. Ensuite, Samuel de Champlain avait exploré largement la région en 1605. Il avait spécifiquement étudié la baie de Plymouth (Plymouth Harbor), qu'il avait alors baptisée « Port Saint-Louis », puis établira une carte détaillée de la région et des terres environnantes. Toutefois, deux ans avant l'arrivée du Mayflower, la variole et d'autres maladies apportées par les pêcheurs anglais dans la région, avaient coûté la vie à 90 % de la population amérindienne.
 En 1614, Le capitaine John Smith, fondateur de la colonie de Jamestown en Virginie, quelques années auparavant, effectua un deuxième voyage sur le continent. C'est lui qui baptisa la région Nouvelle-Angleterre, avec privilège du prince Charles (le futur Charles ). On lui doit aussi le nom de « New Plymouth » pour rebaptiser le village indien d’Accomack.
 Premiers contacts et fondation de la colonie
 Le , les Pères pèlerins du Mayflower et 102 autres colons anglais débarquent à Cap Cod (sur le site de Provincetown). Ne trouvant pas d'endroit où s'établir durablement, une mission exploratoire d'une quinzaine d'hommes commandée par le capitaine Myles Standish fut organisée vers le 15 du mois. Puis, une deuxième mission avec un groupe de 34 hommes commandé par , partit le à bord d'une chaloupe que les pèlerins avaient eux-mêmes construite. Une troisième subira quelques premières escarmouches avec des indiens Wampanoags de la tribu des Nausets au niveau de Eastham le . Devant ces échecs successifs, les colons du Mayflower levèrent l'ancre. Le navire longea alors les côtes de la baie du cap Cod, et aborda la petite baie de « New Plymouth » le 17 décembre, sur le site d'un village indien abandonné nommé « Patuxet ». Ils y restèrent trois jours pour arpenter la zone.
 L'emplacement fut finalement choisi pour sa position défensive, et par le fait que les terres pouvaient être facilement mises en culture, car ayant été précédemment occupées par les autochtones.
 Le , William Bradford, le chef de la communauté, débarqua avec quelques hommes sur le site de Plymouth Rock et fondèrent officiellement la première ville baptisée naturellement « New Plymouth » (actuellement la ville de Plymouth), John Carver devenant gouverneur de la colonie.
 Mais les débuts de la colonie furent difficiles, beaucoup moururent du scorbut. Ainsi, sur les 102 premiers immigrants, la moitié avaient péri le premier hiver. Au mois de février 1621, les premières rencontres avec les Indiens Wampanoag furent tendues et obligèrent les colons à s'organiser militairement sous le commandement de Myles Standish, officier anglais qui avait été spécialement recruté dans ce but par les Pères pèlerins.
 Le , eurent lieu les premiers contacts pacifiques entre colons et indiens, l'un de ces derniers nommé Samoset, leur servit d'interprète (il avait précédemment un peu appris l'anglais grâce au contact des pécheurs venant d'outre-Manche). Grâce au chef indien Wampanoag Massasoit, les colons apprirent l'existence d'un autre autochtone nommé Squanto qui lui, avait une parfaite connaissance de la langue anglaise, pour avoir été retenu en captivité en Angleterre pendant plusieurs années. Squanto prit alors contact avec les Colons de Plymouth et, avec sa tribu, leur offrit de la nourriture, puis leur apprit à pêcher, chasser et cultiver du maïs.
 Afin de célébrer la première récolte, à l’automne suivant, le gouverneur Bradford décréta trois jours d'action de grâce. Les colons invitèrent le chef Massasoit et 90 de ses hommes à venir partager leur repas, en guise de remerciement pour l'aide apportée, et afin de sceller une amitié durable en concluant un pacte commercial. Des dindes sauvages et des pigeons furent servis à cette occasion : ce fut le premier Thanksgiving fêté sur le territoire américain.
 Peuplement de la colonie
 Durant la même période, le , arriva d'Angleterre de façon inattendue, un second navire (le Fortune) qui débarqua 37 nouveaux colons. Toutefois, ceux-ci étaient peu équipés en fournitures, et la charge de ces habitants supplémentaires pesa lourdement sur les ressources de la colonie. Parmi les passagers du Fortune se trouvait notamment un certain Philippe de La Noye (1602-1681), protestant wallon de 19 ans, dont la famille était originaire de Lille et de Tourcoing (dont le nom fut anglicisé en « Delano »), qui eut pour descendants entre autres : Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Alan Shepard, Laura Ingalls Wilder et Robert Redford.
 En juillet 1623, deux ans et demi après la fondation de la ville de Plymouth, deux autres bateaux arrivèrent dans la baie avec à leurs bords 90 passagers. Au mois de septembre suivant, un nouveau navire débarqua un certain nombre de colons, qui restèrent quelque temps dans la colonie avant d'aller fonder la ville de Weymouth située plus au nord.
 Le mois de mars 1624 voit l'accostage d'un bateau chargé 156 passagers (répartis en douze groupes de 13 personnes chacun), mais surtout de têtes de bétail.
 En janvier 1630, la colonie comptait déjà 300 habitants. En 1643, elle compte environ 600 hommes aptes au service militaire, ce qui implique une population totale d'environ âmes. En 1690, à la veille de la dissolution de la colonie, la population du comté de Plymouth, le plus peuplé d'entre eux, a été estimée à personnes, et d'environ pour l'ensemble de son territoire.
 À titre de comparaison, on estime qu'entre 1630 et 1640, une période connue sous le nom de la Grande Migration, plus de colons étaient arrivés dans la seule colonie de la baie du Massachusetts, et en 1678 la population de l'ensemble de la Nouvelle-Angleterre a été estimée de l'ordre de personnes. Malgré le fait que Plymouth a été la première colonie dans la région, au moment de son annexion, elle est beaucoup plus petite que la colonie de la baie du Massachusetts.
 La fin de la colonie
 Malgré l'échec du Dominion de Nouvelle-Angleterre entre 1686 et 1689, la couronne anglaise n'avait pas abandonné le projet de placer les colonies de la Nouvelle-Angleterre sous son autorité administrative et autres. Ainsi, en 1691 la Province de la baie du Massachusetts fut organisée autour de la « Colonie de la baie du Massachusetts » qui était la plus importante d'entre elles, incluant notamment la Colonie de Plymouth qui fut de ce fait dissoute.
 Gouvernement et législation
 Organisation
 Le Mayflower Compact qui avait été signé, à bord du Mayflower le , par les pèlerins avant qu'ils ne débarquent à Provincetown, fut longtemps le seul document régissant la vie de la colonie. Les premières lois ne seront pas codifiées avant 1636. Celles-ci étaient fondées sur le mélange de la common law anglaise avec le droit religieux inspiré par la Bible.
 La colonie offrait à tous les hommes adultes la potentialité d'être citoyen. Pour être considéré comme un citoyen, il fallait être parrainé par un autre citoyen et accepté par le Tribunal. Au citoyen, appelé aussi « homme libre », était accordé des droits et des privilèges, comme le droit de vote et celui d'élection. On ne tarda pas cependant à mettre des restrictions à l'octroi du statut de citoyen, en instaurant une période d'attente d'un an (en particulier pour les quakers), durée pendant laquelle les mœurs était observés.
 L'âge minimum requis pour devenir citoyen était fixé à 21 ans, mais la plupart des hommes obtenaient ce droit entre 25 et 40 ans, en moyenne au début de la trentaine.
 La colonie était placée sous la direction d'un « gouverneur » qui était élu par les citoyens, mais fut plus tard nommé par le Tribunal lors d'une élection annuelle.
 Le Tribunal élisait également sept « assistants » formant un cabinet au côté du gouverneur.
 Ce cabinet nommait ensuite des « Agents » qui administraient les villes de la colonie et les « messagers » qui étaient responsables de la publication d'annonces, effectuaient des enquêtes, la réalisation d'exécutions, et une foule d'autres fonctions.
 Le Tribunal détenait à la fois le pouvoir législatif et judiciaire au sein de la colonie. Les membres étaient élus par les citoyens dans leur circonscription et se réunissaient régulièrement à Plymouth, la capitale de la colonie.
 Dans le cadre de ses fonctions judiciaires, le tribunal était périodiquement appelé « Grand Enquest » (comparable au Grand jury connu de nos jours dans le droit américain), élus parmi les hommes libres, qui entendait les plaintes et les prestations de serment pour des accusations crédibles.
 Plus tard, le Tribunal siégea lors de procès des criminels et en matières civiles, mais les sentences finales étaient rendues par un jury d'hommes libres.
 Géographie
 Les comtés et les villes de la colonie
 La colonie de Plymouth n'a été officiellement divisée en comtés que le , au cours de la réorganisation qui aboutira à la formation du Dominion de Nouvelle-Angleterre.
 Le Comté de Barnstable
 Barnstable, le chef-lieu du comté, d'abord fondé en 1639 et incorporée 1650.
 Eastham, site de la « Première rencontre », d'abord fondée en 1644 et incorporée sous le nom de Nauset en 1646, prit le nom de Eastham en 1651.
 Falmouth, d'abord installée en 1661, et incorporée dans Succonesset en 1686.
 Sandwich, d'abord installée en 1637 et incorporée en 1639.
 Yarmouth, incorporé en 1639.
 Le Comté de Bristol, le long des rives de la Buzzards Bay et Narragansett Bay, fait partie de la colonie avant d'être cédée au Rhode Island
 Taunton, le chef-lieu du comté, incorporé en 1639.
 Bristol, fondée en 1680 et incorporé, elle inclut l'ancien emplacement des Sowams et Montaup (Mount Hope), qui ont été respectivement les capitales des chefs Massasoit et Metacomet (alias « le roi Philippe »). Cédée au Rhode Island en 1746, elle fait maintenant partie du Comté de Bristol.
 Dartmouth, incorporé en 1664. Dartmouth a été le site d'un massacre par les forces indiennes au cours de Guerre du Roi Philip. Puis, 160 indiens qui se rendirent ont ensuite été vendus comme esclaves.
 Freetown, incorporé en 1683, initialement connu sous le nom de « Freemen's Land » par ses premiers colons.
 Little Compton, anciennement connu sous le nom de Sakonnet en 1682, cédé à Rhode Island en 1746, elle fait maintenant partie du Comté de Newport.
 Rehoboth, fondée en 1644 et incorporée en 1645. À proximité, mais distincte de la Rehoboth de Roger Williams, qui est maintenant la ville de Pawtucket fondé en 1671, désormais incorporée au Rhode Island.
 Rochester, fondée en 1638, incorporé en 1686.
 Swansea, fondée comme le canton de Wannamoiset en 1667, intégré en tant que ville de Swansea en 1668. C'est ici que fut tuée la première victime anglaise de la Guerre du roi Philippe.
 le Comté de Plymouth, le long des rives occidentales de la baie du Cap Cod.
 Plymouth, chef-lieu du comté et la capitale de la colonie. Ce fut la principale ville de la colonie jusqu'à sa dissolution en 1691.
 Bridgewater, achetée au chef Massasoit par Myles Standish, son nom d'origine était Duxburrow New Plantation, elle a été rebaptisée Bridgewater en 1656.
 Duxbury, fondée par Myles Standish, elle a été incorporée en 1637.
 Marshfield, fondée en 1632 et incorporée en 1640. La demeure de Peregrine White, le premier enfant anglais né en Nouvelle-Angleterre s'y trouvait.
 Middleborough, nommé ainsi en raison de son emplacement à mi-chemin, sur la route de Plymouth à Mount Hope, le capitale des indiens Wampanoags.
 Scituate, fondée en 1628 et incorporée en 1636.
 Démographie
 Amérindiens
 Anglais
 Esclaves noirs
 Économie
 Héritage
 Notes et références
 Annexes
 Articles connexes
 Histoire du Massachusetts
 Histoire coloniale de l'Amérique
 Musée des postes de traite Aptucxet
 Bibliographie
 Marcel Giraud, « La vie religieuse dans la colonie de New Plymouth (1620-1691) » (premier article), Revue de l’histoire des religions, 1949, p. 49-78. En ligne. ; idem (second article), Revue de l’histoire des religions, 1949, p. 143-186. En ligne.
 Division administrative fondée en 1620


type: wikipedia

text:
A eleição para governador do estado americano do Kansas em 2010 aconteceu no dia 2 de novembro de 2010. O candidato eleito terá um mandato de quatro anos,entre 2011-2015. O governador Mark Parkinson, que assumiu o cargo devido à nomeação de Kathleen Sebelius como secretário de Saúde e Serviços Humanos dos Estados Unidos, anunciou que não será candidato a reeleição em 2010. O senador Sam Brownback é o favorito e lidera as pesquisa contra potenciais adversários democratas.
 Kansas
 Governador 2010


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 253 Md. 313 (1969)
 252 A.2d 797
 AUSTIN
 v.
 STATE OF MARYLAND
 [No. 222, September Term, 1968.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided May 1, 1969.
 *314 The cause was argued before HAMMOND, C.J., and MARBURY, McWILLIAMS, FINAN and SMITH, JJ.
 Edward J. Angeletti and John D. Hackett for appellant.
 Bernard L. Silbert, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Attorney of Baltimore City, and James F. Garrity, Assistant State's Attorney of Baltimore City, on the brief, for appellee.
 FINAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 We review this case on a writ of certiorari (Code (1968 Repl. Vol.) Art. 5, Sec. 21A) for the sole purpose of determining the correctness of the holding of the Court of Special Appeals sustaining the trial court's refusal to admit into evidence a police report, pertaining to the identification of the accused, as given to a police officer by a witness near the scene of the crime.
 At a trial held February 20-21, 1967, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, a jury convicted the appellant, John Henry Austin, of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was thereafter sentenced to a term of twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary.
 The evidence adduced at the trial established that on the morning of February 16, 1965, Mrs. Mae Duda was robbed of some $788.00 by two negro men who entered her living quarters above the funeral home she operated in Baltimore City. The faces of both men, one of whom carried a revolver, were covered with blue handkerchiefs, but during a struggle the mask fell from the face of one of them.
 On March 8, 1965, Mrs. Duda identified a police photograph of the appellant as the man who had become unmasked in the course of the crime. On March 12, 1965, Mrs. Duda again identified the appellant from a police line-up as one of her assailants.
 At the trial, in presenting his defense to the charges against him, appellant read into the record the former testimony of John *315 W. Ketcham, since deceased, taken from the transcript of the appellant's prior trial which had been invalidated as a result of Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 213 A.2d 475 (1965). At that trial Ketcham had testified that about the time of the robbery he observed two negro men wearing dark overcoats enter Mrs. Duda's premises and then depart about twenty minutes later. Ketcham was not, according to his testimony, able to identify either of the men. Appellant then called Sergeant James Gorsuch as a witness. He testified that immediately after the crime he had interviewed Ketcham and had written a departmental report following the interview. The appellant offered the report as evidence for the purpose of showing that Sergeant Gorsuch had received from Ketcham a description of the two men substantially different from that given the police by Mrs. Duda (a description also possibly different from that of the appearance of the appellant himself), and urged that it should be admitted as part of the res gestae. However, the State objected to the introduction of this report and the trial court sustained the objection on the basis that since Mr. Ketcham was deceased, there was nothing further that could be added or detracted from his testimony given at the prior trial. The trial court also was of the opinion that the report was irrevelant.
 In his appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, the appellant contended that the report was admissible to show that Ketcham's description of the men was different from that given by Mrs. Duda to the police. However, the State contended then and now, that counsel for the accused failed to make a proper proffer of what he intended to prove by the introduction of the report at the time it was submitted at the trial, and that accordingly there was no issue for the Court of Special Appeals to review. The Court of Special Appeals was of the opinion that the appellant had failed to state the rule of evidence upon which he was relying to support the admissibility of the police report, and in the absence of some clear showing of a proper basis supporting the report's admissibility under the rules of evidence the trial judge should be affirmed.
 We think that with regard to the issue of lack of proper proffer of the report the simple answer is the police report was in the State's possession, it was familiar with its contents, and the *316 substance of the report being information on the identity of the accused, spoke for itself. We do not discount the importance of a proper proffer when the evidence sought to be introduced is under challenge (Leitch v. Anne Arundel County, 248 Md. 611, 616, 237 A.2d 748 (1968); Fowler v. Benton, 229 Md. 571, 575, 185 A.2d 344 (1962); Maryland Rule 522 b); however, in the instant case the variance between the description given by the victim and that contained in the report makes obvious the purpose for its being offered into evidence. In our opinion, the question of whether it should, or should not, have been admitted into evidence depended upon its relevancy. We think it was sufficiently relevant to the question of identification to have been admitted into evidence for consideration by the jury.
 The difficulty with the State's position in this case, as we see it, is that the exclusion of the report which Sergeant Gorsuch took from Ketcham goes to the very core of the State's case against the appellant. The State's case hangs by the tenuous thread of identification of the accused by the victim. The Court of Special Appeals noted:
 "* * * the substance of the report was not relevant to the issues in the case since, at most, it established that Ketcham's description of the men who entered the victim's home was different than that given by the victim of her assailants and, additionally, different from that of the appellant. We note that Ketcham's description of the men, as related in the police report, was most general and actually was consistent with the victim's description of the clothing worn by the two men. In any event, we see no error in the court's refusal to admit the police report into evidence." 3 Md. App. 231, 236, 238 A.2d 569, 572 (1967).
 We are of the opinion that the substance of the report was quite relevant to the central issue in this case, namely, the question of the identification of the accused. The State argues that the substance of the report was cumulative in character and in fact was corroborative of the testimony given by the victim in her description of the apparel in which the assailants were garbed. However, we think the substance of the report was more *317 than a mere rephrasing of Ketcham's direct testimony as given at the first trial and certainly was more than repetitious of the victim's testimony. Had it been merely cumulative it would not have been prejudicial to the accused to exclude it, but an examination of the report reveals a variance between the description of those who perpetrated the crime contained in the report, and that given by the victim, as well as a possible conflict with the actual appearance of the accused. We are of the opinion that the report should have gone before the jury for its consideration for whatever weight the jury might have chosen to place upon it.
 The report described one of the two men seen entering and leaving the Duda Funeral Home, as being between 25 to 27 years of age, between five feet eight inches and five feet ten inches in height and weighing about 165 pounds; the other between 25 and 30 years of age, between five feet seven and five feet eight inches in height and weighing about 175 pounds. The accused was 60 years old at the time of the commission of the crime; thus there is a considerable discrepancy between the age of even the eldest suspect as given in the report and in fact. There is also a difference in the description between the eldest suspect (the accused), as described by the victim and that contained in the report. Mrs. Duda described the elder of the two as being 40 years of age, six feet tall and weighing 190 pounds. The report given to the police by Ketcham describes the elder of the two as being between five feet seven and five feet eight and between 25 to 30 years and weighing 175 pounds. As we have stated, the defendant was actually 60 years of age. The report does corroborate the victim's testimony regarding the apparel worn by the men which described them as wearing dark, full-length overcoats and slouch hats.
 Perhaps the jury may have found the difference in the descriptions contained in the report, as contrasted with that given by the victim, as trivial or reconcilable, but we have no way of knowing that.
 We are not here confronted with a case where the State knowingly failed to disclose evidence which it had in its possession, and which may have been helpful to the defendant, such as was presented in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and *318 Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66 (1967). In this instance the defendant's counsel was aware of the substance of the police report and desired to get it before the jury. Although we do not have a Brady or Giles situation, none the less, responsibility of the State "to provide a fair trial under the Due Process Clause" still persists and it would appear to us to have required the admission of the report. In Giles, supra, Justice Fortas in a concurring opinion expressed it thus:
 "* * * The State's obligation is not to convict, but to see that, so far as possible, truth emerges. This is also the ultimate statement of its responsibility to provide a fair trial under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. * * *."
 "This is not to say that convictions ought to be reversed on the ground that information merely repetitious, cumulative, or embellishing of facts otherwise known to the defense or presented to the court, or without importance to the defense for purposes of the preparation of the cases or for trial was not disclosed to defense counsel. It is not to say that the State has an obligation to communicate preliminary, challenged, or speculative information. But this is not that case. Petitioners were on trial for their lives. The information was specific, factual, and concrete, although its implications may be highly debatable. * * *." Id. at 98.
 As we have previously stated, we do not think the report presented evidence restricted to a repetitious or cumulative nature. See also United States v. Maroney, 319 F.2d 622, 627 (3d Cir.1963), wherein the Court said:
 "This withholding by the Commonwealth of information impinging on a vital area in appellant's defense is a denial of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. * * *." [Citing Brady, supra] Id. at 627.
 In State v. Aubuchon, 381 S.W.2d 807 (1964), the Missouri Supreme Court while sustaining the refusal of the trial court to admit into evidence a police officer's report concerning his *319 chase of the accused in flight, during which the officer lost surveillance, stated:
 "* * * We hold now, that, if there is a satisfactory showing that a report or statement of a witness in the hands of the State is of such nature that without it the defendant's trial would be fundamentally unfair, then it should be produced; otherwise not. * * *." (Second Emphasis supplied.)
 Insofar as the effect it may have on the right of the accused to a fair trial, we see no basic distinction between evidence the State willfully fails to disclose and that withheld because of an erroneous evaluation by the court as to its relevancy. In both instances the accused may be prejudiced by the evidence being withheld from the jury. We are persuaded that the report, for whatever weight the jury may have assigned to it, was relevant to the case and, if for no other reason than that of fundamental fairness to the accused, should have been admitted into evidence.
 Reversed, remanded for new trial; state to pay costs.


text:
Il museo di belle arti di Granada è la più importante pinacoteca della città, la cui fama è radicata più nel suo patrimonio monumentale che in quello pittorico. Questo spiega il relativo oblio in cui è caduto questo museo.
 Il museo venne ospitato inizialmente nell'antico convento domenicano di Santa Cruz la Real, e venne inaugurato nel 1839, e pertanto è la pinacoteca provinciale più antica di Spagna. Dopo diversi cambi di ubicazione, da 1958 ha sede nel Palazzo di Carlo V, notevole edificio del Rinascimento annesso all'Alhambra.
 Storia
 Come tanti altri musei provinciali di Spagna, questo Museo di belle arti deve la sua origine alla desamortización di Mendizábal, che aveva portato alla dispersione di numerose opere d'arte appartenute a ordini religiosi. Così, l'istituzione venne creata per custodire le opere artistiche, per lo più religiose, che erano in pericolo.
 Il museo venne inaugurato nell'antico convento domenicano di Santa Cruz la Real, l'11 agosto 1839. Nel 1889, il Comune di Granada prese la decisione di dedicare l'edificio a sede di un Liceo militare, e quindi le collezioni d'arte passarono in diversi altri edifici: prima nei saloni della Casa Consistorial, dopo in un edificio della calle Arandas, e quindi alla così detta Casa de Castril.
 Già nel XIX secolo venne discussa l'opportunità di recuperare come sede del Museo il famoso Palazzo di Carlo V, considerato l'edificio cristiano più importante di Granada, che permaneva vuoto e in condizioni non ottimali. Il Patronato del Museo decise formalmente il trasferimento in detto edificio nel 1914, ma la cosa non avvenne fino al 1941 quando il governo spagnolo (la Direzione generale di belle arti) decise il trasferimento.
 Il processo durò a lungo, e il Museo non venne inaugurato nel Palazzo fino al 1958, in coincidenza con il IV centenario dalla morte di Carlo V. Venne sistemato nel piano superiore dell'edificio, con ovvie limitazioni anche se si decise di non alterare la disposizione originale.
 Nel 1994 vennero avviate le opere di ristrutturazione del piano terra del Palazzo di Carlo V per ubicarvi, tra le altre cosee, il Museo dell'Alhambra. L'eliminazione del piano rialzato rese necessario il trasferimento di parte delle sale del Museo di belle arti nel complesso edilizio denominato Nuovi Musei.
 Il Museo è stato sottoposto a una nuova sistemazione, secondo tecniche moderne, iniziata nel 2003 e inaugurata a gennaio del 2008.
 Collezioni
 Le collezioni sono costituite essenzialmente da dipinti e sculture, dal XV al XX secolo. I fondi più ampi e ricchi provengono da fondazioni religiose confiscate nel XIX secolo. Sono poi state aggiunte opere depositate nel Museo del Prado e nuove acquisizioni, con tanti esemplari di arte moderna e di antichi maestri.
 Tra i pezzi più antichi, spicca la scultura di Santa María dell'Alhambra, della fine del XV secolo, attribuita a Roberto Tedesco e che presiedeva la Puerta de la Justicia dell'Alhambra. Nel 1941 è stata rimossa dall'esposizione e sostituita con una copia per preservarla dal deterioramento. Della stessa epoca, è il Trittico del Grande Capitano, realizzato in smalto di Limoges.
 Degli inizi del XVI secolo è il grande gruppo del El entierro de Cristo, di Jacopo Torni, e il poco più recente rilievo della Vergine con il Bambino, scolpito in legno da Diego de Siloé.
 Una delle sezioni più importanti è quella degli inizi del XVII secolo con opere di Juan Sánchez Cotán. Il suo Bodegón con cardo e carote è forse la migliore opera del Museo, nonché pezzo chiave della sua produzione, insieme ad un altro del Museo del Prado. Dello stesso artista il Museo ospita varie opere di genere religioso provenienti della Certosa di Granada nella quale l'artista fu monaco. Tra queste una Virgen despertando al Niño, già di minore rilevanza, visto che Sánchez Cotán era piuttosto conservatore e antiquato nelle sue opere religiose e la sua fama odierna e radicata nelle sue nature morte.
 Un altro esempio representativo di natura morta spagnola degli inizi del XVII secolo è Cajitas de dulces, di Juan van der Hamen, proveniente del Palazzo arcivescovile.
 Alonso Cano, nato a Granada, è un altro grande protagonista del Museo. Qui si custodiscono La Virgen del Lucero, San Jerónimo penitente en el desierto e la scultura di San Diego de Alcalá. Molto numerosa è la collezione dei seguaci di Alonso Cano, sia scultori che pittori, come Pedro Atanasio Bocanegra, Juan de Siviglia, Pedro de Mena, del quale si conserva un busto della Dolorosa o de la Soledad, e di José de Mora, accanto ad altri maestri meno conosciuti, come i Cieza, Miguel Jerónimo di Cieza e suo figlio José, Pedro de Moya, Ambrosio Martínez Bustos e i Gómez di Valencia, Felipe Gómez di Valencia e suo figlio Francisco, chiudendo con le opere del pittore e scultore José Risueño.
 Del XIX secolo spicca una Vista del Antiguo Ayuntamiento de Granada (1873), di Marià Fortuny i Marsal, e del 1920, un Paisaje de Sierra Nevada di Antonio Muñoz Degrain.
 Note
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni
 Pinacoteche della Spagna
 Granada


type: other

text:
Καραμεσίνη: Αυτά προσφέρει η κάρτα ανεργίας του ΟΑΕΔ - Αδέσμευτη Ενημέρωση Παλλήνης
 Home ΡΕΠΟΡΤΑΖ Καραμεσίνη: Αυτά προσφέρει η κάρτα ανεργίας του ΟΑΕΔ
 NEWS ΠΑΛΛΗΝΗΣ / 26.5.17
 Άρθρο της Μαρίας Καραμεσίνη, διοικήτριας και προέδρου του ΔΣ του ΟΑΕΔ, που δημοσιεύτηκε στο ΑΠΕ, αναλύει τις παροχές των καρτών ανεργίας που είχαν ως αποτέλεσμα και την αύξηση των εγγεγραμμένων στον Οργανισμό.
 “Τα δύο τελευταία χρόνια ένας αυξανόμενος αριθμός μη επιδοτούμενων ανέργων που βρισκόταν εκτός μητρώου ΟΑΕΔ γράφτηκε σε αυτό, προκαλώντας την άνοδο της εγγεγραμμένης ανεργίας, ενώ ταυτόχρονα η Έρευνα Εργατικού Δυναμικού της ΕΛΣΤΑΤ -που δίνει αξιόπιστες στατιστικές εκτιμήσεις στον πληθυσμό- κατέγραφε συνεχή αύξηση της απασχόλησης και μείωση της ανεργίας, και η ΕΡΓΑΝΗ επιβεβαίωνε αμετάκλητα την καθαρή αύξηση των θέσεων μισθωτής εργασίας στον ιδιωτικό τομέα της οικονομίας.
 Ως αποτέλεσμα των παραπάνω τάσεων, η ψαλίδα μεταξύ της διοικητικά καταγραφόμενης (από τον ΟΑΕΔ) και της στατιστικά καταγραφόμενης (από την ΕΛΣΤΑΤ) ανεργίας έκλεισε. Οι εγγεγραμμένοι στο μητρώο του ΟΑΕΔ άνεργοι αποτελούσαν το 87% αυτών της ΕΛΣΤΑΤ τον Απρίλιο του 2017 έναντι 76% τον Απρίλιο του 2014.
 Η αύξηση των εγγραφών στο μητρώο μη επιδοτούμενων ανέργων προερχόμενων από τον μη ενεργό πληθυσμό οφείλεται σε μία σειρά παραγόντων. Τα δικαιώματα και οφέλη που παρέχει το δελτίο ανεργίας, ο επανασχεδιασμός των προγραμμάτων απασχόλησης που έδωσε προτεραιότητα στους μακροχρόνια ανέργους και οι εκκλήσεις του ΟΑΕΔ προς τους νέους για να εγγραφούν προκειμένου να συμμετέχουν στα προγράμματα απασχόλησης που απευθύνονταν σε αυτούς, αποτέλεσαν την τελευταία διετία κίνητρα και έναυσμα εγγραφής στο μητρώο του ΟΑΕΔ σε αυτούς που αναζητούσαν εργασία, ακόμα και εάν δεν είχαν προϋποθέσεις για να διεκδικήσουν επίδομα ανεργίας (μη επιδοτούμενοι άνεργοι).
 Συγκεκριμένα, πέραν της αξίωσης για επίδομα ανεργίας όταν πληρούνται οι προϋποθέσεις, το δελτίο ανεργίας παρέχει σε όλους τους ανέργους, επιδοτούμενους ή μη:
 – πρόσβαση σε προγράμματα απασχόλησης,
 – προσφορές επιχειρήσεων του ιδιωτικού τομέα (π.χ. εισιτήριο σε κινηματογράφους, θέατρα),
 Η εγγεγραμμένη ανεργία έχει αρχίσει από τον Μάρτιο να μειώνεται -ευθυγραμμιζόμενη με την τάση της στατιστικής ανεργίας- εφόσον πλέον υπερισχύουν οι έξοδοι από το μητρώο λόγω μεγάλης αύξησης των θέσεων εργασίας. Όμως, παρά την πτωτική της τάση, ο αριθμός των εγγεγραμμένων ανέργων είναι τεράστιος και αποτελεί πρόκληση για τον ΟΑΕΔ που καλείται να τους παρέχει στήριξη και διέξοδο. Ο Οργανισμός θα δώσει τον καλύτερο εαυτό του στην προσπάθεια για αισθητή αποκλιμάκωση της ανεργίας τα επόμενα χρόνια, υλοποιώντας τις κατευθύνσεις της πολιτικής ηγεσίας του Υπ. Εργασίας”.