More Sorry Suggestions

I've been keeping out of this thread because I wanted to see where it went. The net result is that Astrid has risen in my estimation quite dramatically. I'm with you, Astrid, and I like the way you stood up to the red-necks (a hobby of mine, by the way :wink:)

In the early part of this century in WHITE AUSTRALIA it was expected that the Aboriginal population would die off because of the natural processes of evolution (i.e., that the superiour race would prevail over the weaker, see Hitler and WWII). This meant policies of segregation where the indigenous people were herded into settlements (like the American indigenous people and the "Indian reservations") where this process could take place. We all accept these days that this process was given some assistance with bullets and poison.

In the 20s, 30s and 40s the indigenous population actually increased, mainly through a rising population of the so called "half castes". A range of policies were introduced to "solve this problem". At the same time the scientific community here suggested that, as Aboriginal people were a specific type, "Australoids", that were "pre-caucasion" rather than "negroid", there was little chance that there would be "black throwbacks" after inter-relationships between white people and the indigenous people.

Therefore, it was understood that in WHITE AUSTRALIA you could actually breed the black out of the indigenous population through continued inter-relationships with the larger white population. This meant new policies of continued segregation for the so-called "fullbloods" in the expectation that they would continue to die out, and policies of amalgamation for the "halfcastes" in order that they be absorbed into the white population.

This is why halfcaste children were taken from their parents, and we owe the indigenous population in this country an enormous apology for the horrendous and racist way we have treated them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

and I like the way you stood up to the red-necks (a hobby of mine, by the way :wink:)

---

There is no need for personal attacks and name calling based on the fact that someone has a different opinion to you. Thankfully we live in a democratic society and the fact that some people do not agree with what the government has chosen to do does not remove their right to put forward their point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

I'm with you, Astrid, and I like the way you stood up to the red-necks (a hobby of mine, by the way :wink:)

---

Can you please provide a definition of the term "redneck"?
While your at it could you also provide the term given to those who are the opposite of redneck?
I am thinking it is along the lines of moralistic, do-gooder, opiniated, non contributor to society, whinger, one eyed, unable to accept others opinions, Kevin Rudd supporter. Or somewhere along those lines.

Cheers, Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

Kevin Rudd supporter.

---

Must be a few of those, did you happen to see the election result?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Silent, whilst I think you may be right in your assumption as to what the apology will cover, no one person outside Rudd's immediate circle has seen the actual wording. There fore you, and I and a few million other Australians, can only "assume".

---

True. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. We might all be surprised.

"

Quote:

---

The net result is that Astrid has risen in my estimation quite dramatically. I'm with you, Astrid, and I like the way you stood up to the red-necks (a hobby of mine, by the way :wink:)"

---

Rossluck, it is offensive to call people rednecks because they post an opinion. It is equally offensive to suggest you should have read at least one book before offering an opinion as was proffered by Astrid .

It is my personal belief that no matter how much verbal diarrhoea flows in Canberra tomorrow, not a lot will change but it will probably help the 'industry" get a bit more momentum for further financial help.

I do have a problem being confronted with an aboriginal family beating their kids in shopping centres, this seems to be a common event these days and perhaps these poor little people should be taken from their parents, I certainly would not have a problem with that occuring despite the opinions being proffered here.

If reading books produces dialogue such as your post I will pass on that. It may be that I am possibly a redneck, or perhaps was not educated enough to understand some of the worldly problems but I am still offended by your comments.

Regards Mike

[quote=Rossluck;681265] The net result is that Astrid has risen in my estimation quite dramatically. I'm with you, Astrid, and I like the way you stood up to the red-necks (a hobby of mine, by the way :wink:).[/quote]

1. Well seeing as Astrid "stood up" to me by insulting me then that would mean that you are talking about me and therefore consider me a redneck. She did a great job, come on, call people names, tell them to read a book and then leave.

Show me what I have said that is "rednecked"?

From the Oxford dictionary;

redneck


• noun N. Amer. informal, derogatory a working-class white person from the southern US, especially a politically conservative one.


Dont think daddy was from the south, maybe you have some other meaning.


2.

"Therefore, it was understood that in WHITE AUSTRALIA you could actually breed the black out of the indigenous population through continued inter-relationships with the larger white population. This meant new policies of continued segregation for the so-called "fullbloods" in the expectation that they would continue to die out, and policies of amalgamation for the "halfcastes" in order that they be absorbed into the white population. "

Was this a govt policy?

According to Reconcile.org.au;

"1. Who are the stolen generations?

The term ‘stolen generations’ refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who were forcibly removed from their families and communities by government, welfare or church authorities as children and placed into institutional care or with non-Indigenous foster families. The forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children began as early as the mid 1800s and continued until 1970.

This removal occurred as the result of official laws and policies aimed at assimilating the Indigenous population into the wider community. "


The policy was assimilation, once again from the oxford;

"absorb and integrate into a people or culture."

Where is this breed it out of them policy?

3.

Obviously, the opposite policy would have been "segregation"

"the enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment."

So lets transport Rossluck back in time to the 1800's. Your now the governor and you have a two cultures. One is a very old culture and one is a very new culture. They are clashing with one another. Clashing over land, cattle and crops amongst other things.

They are beginning to interbreed with the offspring being rejected in many cases by both cultures.

Show us your policies Governer Rossluck. Dont forget though that you are back in the 1800's, some still think the world is flat, that ridges on your skull can determine intellect and across the world enslaving cultures is seen as a noble profession.

Whats the fix Guv:?

Oh, and keep in mind that you will be held accountable by a far more worldly and educated society long after your gone

If you are going to post an opinion I have no problem with quoting the reference it came from. However like Mick I don't think its useful to provide an unsupported opinion and then ask others to read a book to find the basis for that view, which by its nature is insulting. By all means state a view back it up with the reason, and accept that others will have different views. I'm sure most of us have read many articles and publications on the subject over the years, some have closer contact of varying forms, and this is not a black and white (no pun implied) issue it is very much shades of gray, and although I fully support an apology I can equally see the reasons why others don't even if I don't agree with them.

Just don't apologise on my part, I didn't do anything, okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

If you are going to post an opinion I have no problem with quoting the reference it came from. However like Mick I don't think its useful to provide an unsupported opinion and then ask others to read a book to find the basis for that view, which by its nature is insulting. By all means state a view back it up with the reason, and accept that others will have different views. I'm sure most of us have read many articles and publications on the subject over the years, some have closer contact of varying forms, and this is not a black and white (no pun implied) issue it is very much shades of gray, and although I fully support an apology I can equally see the reasons why others don't even if I don't agree with them.

---

well said John.

no matter what side of the fence you sit on, those that insult the other side show a lack of tolerance of other views. surely posting on this subject without tolerance is the greatest of ironies?

anyone is entitled to an opinion, and entitled not to be insulted for voicing that opinion.

personally i cant help but look at the "progress" of the last 25 yrs, and see that things have got worse not better, and wonder whether our direction is entirely wrong. In many ways the intellectualised guilt has lead to much of the special treatment, atsic etc, and relatively has done nothing to improve the situation. I am concerned that today then following onto some form of official recognition and treaty in time will simply take the focus off efforts that will actually do something. Grandiose posturing is just that - seems to help some people in leadership positions, but will it actually help the people who need it?

I find myself in complete agreement with you. I just can't help thinking that if they really are sitting back waiting for an apology before moving on and actually doing something to help themselves (rather than expecting the government to do it for them) then they are cutting their noses off to spite their faces. I somehow doubt it.

I think this problem requires two things: support from the government and a willingness from the affected people to bring about change. Unfortunately, the latter just doesn't seem to be there, with the exception of a handful of individuals who actually do try, and the former seems to be squandered on things that don't help long term, or actually make things worse.

How much effort has been put into bringing about this apology? And it's not even a real tangible thing, like land rights, or fishing rights. Such a waste of resources for an end result that is going to give a few people warm and fuzzies and not much else.

Dazzler, in reply to your problem, if I was that Governor, I wouldn't know what to do either. Short of packing everyone up and shipping them back to England, I don't know what else would have worked.

Im just courious...why people get so worked up about this so called apology. Is it really going to effect anyone that the "apology" is'nt directed at.

I mean for the average non aboriginal Australian is this apology going to make one little bit of difference to their life ?.

I understand some are concerned about the possible legal ramifications due to compensation....but as far as i understand anyone with a genuine claim already has the right under the law to make a case for compensation

cheers
BD:)

Here are just a few views that different people have expressed, in no particular order:

1. I don't want the government to apologise on my behalf because I have nothing to apologise for.

2. Making an apology gives the affected people an excuse for making themselves 'victims' - it removes the burden of doing something to help themselves because they now have someone to blame. Many of their problems are not the result of the child removal policy.

3. Making an apology opens the way for stronger calls for some sort of compensation.

4. Taking the children away in many cases was the best thing for them. There were obviously many cases where it was not, but on the whole the government at the time thought it was doing the right thing.

5. The government should not apologise for something that it has every intention of doing again - taking kids away from their birth parents if they see a need for it.

6. An apology is not going to change anything, it's just grandstanding by Kevin Rudd.

There you go, there are a handful of reasons why people object to it.

I'm actually undecided now. On the one hand, it's not going to impact my life and if it makes people feel better, it's like religion - pointless but some people seem to need it so what harm will it do? On the other, people like Michael Mansell make me want to dig my heels in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ernknot

As long as we have religion, non religion and politics plus different coloured people and cultures we will never get on. I wish we could.

---

What have none believers ever done, extremely little compared to the religious and political elements.

HH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

Well, I came here on a boat in the late 60's, so its not my problem to worry about.

---

While you like many people born here or not were not party to causing the problem we should all be prepared to contribute to the solution however unlikely that may be. If not then you should have your voting privileges removed.:U

HH.

This thread shows is that there is still strong division over indigenous Australians in our society. We're also no closer to agreement, but that should come as no surprise, we woodworkers can't even agree to save native forests that were here when Captain Cook showed up, why should the native inhabitants get a break?

I also don't know a lot about Aborigines, but I have had the privilege of spending time with some of them in their own space rather than 'our' space. These people have their own way of life, history and culture, and it is not our way of life, history or culture. We often judge these people and their culture based upon our own, which is a natural thing to do, but I'm not convinced it is the right thing to do.

Will an apology help? I'm hopeful, but I really don't know. We cannot put things back the way they were, but one thing for sure is that a decent apology should stop all this wasted time talking about it and maybe it will sew the seeds of goodwill and we will see progress.

woodbe.

100,000 people to apologise to, that's 0.5% of the population of Australia. If it was fair dinkum, they'd bus them down to Canberra and apologise in person. More people than that turn up in Canberra for the SummerNats.

How will disposessed indigenies receive the message if they don't have tele?

Mel and Koshie are going to broadcast live from Canberra, it must be really important.

P
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Will an apology help? I'm hopeful, but I really don't know

---

well put woodbe

SC

I understand all the views you have put forward on the behalf of others and why people object... what i dont understand is the passion behind the objections

I can empathise with the passion for the desire of an apology but i cant understand the objection...when as far as i can see, there will be no direct negative effect on anyone not directly involved.

Quote:

---

I'm actually undecided now. On the one hand, it's not going to impact my life and if it makes people feel better, it's like religion - pointless but some people seem to need it so what harm will it do? On the other, people like Michael Mansell make me want to dig my heels in.

---

I agree....but what does digging your heel in actually do for you ?
cheers
BD:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

Will an apology help? I'm hopeful, but I really don't know. We cannot put things back the way they were, but one thing for sure is that a decent apology should stop all this wasted time talking about it and maybe it will sew the seeds of goodwill and we will see progress.

woodbe.

---

sounds like you have submitted rather than come around? Weary of the constant political game, the point scoring, the concentration on one issue that certainly isnt the most important one - after all you cant eat or live under an apology.

Just listening to the libs this past week, I sense a battle worn weariness, of just go with the flow - chances are nothing at all will change, and maybe something of substance will replace it.

"hope" is the right word - hoping is about the best its going to get - but just hope that the sydney city socialists dont suddenly think they've done their bit, released their guilt and move on to something more important in their eyes - apologies for the cynical view......

An apology relies on an assumption that something "wrong" occurred. An apology by itself will not right a "wrong", so, what are the things that really need to be fixed? Have they been identified? Can they be fixed?

What happens AFTER the apology? Is that IT? Say sorry and walk away? If it were that simple I reckon it would have been done a while ago.

Some groups have said there must be compensation, some say no. I find myself asking what needs to be fixed, how, and for who? The entire aboriginal community or just the 'stolen' ones? Are the families included? What is family? Brothers and sisters or extended relatives too?

I can't see enough information to make an informed opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown Dog

I can empathise with the passion for the desire of an apology but i cant understand the objection...when as far as i can see, there will be no direct negative effect on anyone not directly involved.

---

The problem might be that there are obviously many people with this view whether you understand it or not and they will look at the apology in a negative way if it's put forward on behalf of all Australians.

This negativity may find it's way passed the apology and impact on aborigines as people associate the apology with Aborigines. Not suggesting this will happen with SilentC but it may with people who have a negativitiy towards aborigines already. This means the apology may have a negative not positive impact if pitched as from all australians.

Let's see what Kevin comes up with......

HH.

Apologies for past Government policies which caused harm or were 'wrong' have been done before.

I know a lot of Govt policies usually end up with poor outcomes, but some outcomes are so poor that they need to be re-addressed.

Silent has pointed out that it is the Stolen Generation that is to receive the apology, and I'm waiting and see the details.

Regardless of the individual circumstances of the children that were removed from their families (I'll even grant that 100% were removed from a rather dismal situation - I don't believe it, but 'just for the sake of the argument')... the fact remains that a lot of the Stolen Generation experienced something that was destructive and led to a hell of a lot of harm.

My view is that if the Govt policy/legislation at the time was to remove some children, then the Govt at that time had a responsibility to those children to ensure that they were cared for to an acceptable standard.
The doctors standard of "do no harm' springs to mind.

The current govt can certainly seek to redress the harm caused by previous Govt policy, and can seek to offer an apology and/or compensation.

Basically, my view is that if the past Govt policy was so bad, then the current Govt is morally obliged (legally - I hope so) to redress the issue.

How far back in time this obligation extends... well, I think that the British Govt is never going to say sorry for 'transportation'... but they can say sorry for inflicting the Spice Girls on us all.

As to 'fixing' the rather woeful situation that some Aboriginal Australians find themselves in.... I have no idea, but hopefully better minds than mine can get in and help to resolve some of the issues.

Suggesting that "we" gave "them" this, that and the next thing is rather unhelpful, and misses the point that "they" are part of that wonderful thing called "the Australian community" and it should really be one rather large and happy family.
Obviously some of the family have rather specific needs at the moment... hopefully the nation can lend a hand, as is both the obligation and the right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

sounds like you have submitted rather than come around? Weary of the constant political game, the point scoring, the concentration on one issue that certainly isnt the most important one - after all you cant eat or live under an apology.

---

Yes, sick of the political game on this issue.

I have never understood what the problem with making an apology was. At one time, I thought that the government's reticence was because of the potential costs, but now, post-intervention, I'm not so sure.

woodbe.

Quote:

---

The real challenge in Aboriginal policy is to "get away from all this romantic [BS] about Aboriginal culture" and to "get rid of this PC crap and confront some very, very tough issues". The person who said this last week was not a Liberal politician but Warren Mundine, an Aborigine and the Labor Party's former national president.

The risk of reinforcing the victim mindset, which Mundine bluntly warns against, was one of the principal reasons why the former Howard government refused to make a formal apology. Instead, the former government tried to work with people such as Mundine and Noel Pearson to encourage Aboriginal people to take more personal responsibility for their own lives.

---

From Tony Abbott's opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown Dog

Im just courious...why people get so worked up about this so called apology. Is it really going to effect anyone that the "apology" is'nt directed at.

I mean for the average non aboriginal Australian is this apology going to make one little bit of difference to their life ?.

I understand some are concerned about the possible legal ramifications due to compensation....but as far as i understand anyone with a genuine claim already has the right under the law to make a case for compensation

cheers
BD:)

---

Hi BD

Interesting points you make. I dont get passionate but enjoy a debate about something that interests me.

I am for compensation as victims of crime for all children taken from thier parents and abused / neglected as a result and would go further. A court or commission solely set up for this function where the person can go before and thier circumstances set out for the court to decide if reparation and an apology is needed. If it is then the compensation should reflect the hurt caused. Unlimited medical care and mental health care where required should be offered.

Each case needs to be assessed on its merits and in some cases huge compensation should be paid. In some cases no compensation need be paid if the child was removed from a bad place and put in a good place so to speak and turned out better for the experience.

The canadians spent $1.9 billion canadian paying reparation. It boiled down to a payment of about $10k per person. What a croc.

What gets me is this. If a group of people are so mentally unwell that they require an apology from another group before they can move forward then they are going to require a lot of psychological help to deal with it afterwards.

What has Mr Rudd put in place for this.

Tomorrow we are going to have a large number of people effected by his apology and many will need counselling or more to deal with it. There will be a large void to fill and I doubt there is anything to fill it with.

Has anyone picked up on the fact that the midday news on ABC stated that a large number of indigenous people are attending not from the group being apologised to but to protest the "intervention". Priorities all screwed up:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

The problem might be that there are obviously many people with this view whether you understand it or not and they will look at the apology in a negative way if it's put forward on behalf of all Australians.

---

I agree that many may people think that this apology is negative for Australia HH...and i will argue to the death for this right

Im trying not arguing one way or the other( althought I do have an opinion)I understand that many Australians are opposed to the current government saying sorry....i suppose what im after is a logical reason why ? I may have missed it but so far I have'nt come across an argument that demonstrates conclusively that this apology is going to effect the average Australian in a negative way..,..dont get me wrong I still respect people who have a different opinion... I am just yet to be convinced

A little back ground of where i am coming from... I dont believe or respect anything that appears in the printed/televised media (based on personnel experience)and that may be to my detriment. Though I do regard one on one interviews with the main principal (Kevin Ruddin this case ) as being a reasonable indication of intentions. And from what I can gather after the interview with Laurie Oaks on the Sunday program... Is that KR is trying to resolve the difference between the average Aussie and indegineous Aussie's life span. Which personally I cant see the harm in whether or not an apology is involved.

cheers
BD:)

SilentC,

Oh wait. A politician telling us after the event why they didn't do something, in lightly veiled dig at the new government, who is doing it.

Excuse my cynicism. :)

woodbe

Silentc, the problem with the "reason" given by Tony Abbott, is that the element of society that is angry at aboriginals (for want of a better (read more accurate), word) sided strongly with the govt. So as a result the pragmatists AND the "anti aboriginals", get lumped into the same boat.

The end result of that was the govt was acused quite widely of pandering towards racism by their policy - its a rock and a hard place.

On the positive side, men such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine werent voicing these opinions a decade ago, so maybe we are getting somewhere, and it will build, and hence maybe real actual action will be taken in the future......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown Dog

... Is that KR is trying to resolve the difference between the average Aussie and indegineous Aussie's life span. Which personally I cant see the harm in whether or not an apology is involved

---

That's a great intention and apparently was actually achieved by the last government. I'd like to see Kevins plan to continue and improve upon this trend.

HH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

SilentC,

Oh wait. A politician telling us after the event why they didn't do something, in lightly veiled dig at the new government, who is doing it.

Excuse my cynicism. :)

woodbe

---

He actually suggests in the article that they did do something which was to increase the average life expectancy.

Apart from a grandstand apology what has Kevin actually done or does he plan to do? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

HH.

Brown dog: a thing doesn't have to directly affect you in a negative (or positive) way for you to have a strong opinion concerning it.

Woodbe: You can say the same for anything that a politician says or does, so we might as well remove them from the equation if we take that line. I'm not supporting his opinion, I just posted it in response to the question asked. Your guess is as good as mine as to the real reasons.

Quote:

---

That's a great intention and apparently was actually achieved by the last government

---

was it ? why is there still an issue then ?

Im not a massive Kevin devote..really I couldnt care less who is in power (their all the same to me).....but.... all we have to go on so far is intentions. And as far as i can remember KR promised he would address this issue as an election promise...just like JH promised there would never be a GST :rolleyes:

SilentC,

Understood.

Thanks for posting it, my politicalBS filter needed a bit of calibration :)

woodbe.

Quote:

---

Brown dog: a thing doesn't have to directly affect you in a negative (or positive) way for you to have a strong opinion concerning it.

---

I totally agree SC
Im not arguing anyones right to an opinion ...Im just saying...so far I havent heard an argument that to me.... supports the negative(to my satisfaction)... for me to change my opinion (which is always open to change:rolleyes:)

But I would would really like too... as i said Im undecided on whether or not this apology is a good thing...though I am leaning to one side ...that doesnt mean to say I cant be convinced one way or the other... As i said i dont hold much stead in what the media says....but I am more than willing for some one to convince me that this apology is a negative thing or confirm that my opinion so far is valid

OK, well apart from the knee-jerk reaction, which is to ask "why should I apologise to these people for anything, I didn't do it to them", the main argument against an apology that I guess I favour above any of the others is the promotion of the victim mentality. I reckon it just gives them another reason to say "poor fella me" instead of grabbing themselves by the seat of the pants and doing something about their situation, which is pretty much what would be expected of me if I was wallowing in similar circumstances. That's pretty much it for me. I'm not going to shout for the overthrow of the government, or fire bomb parliament, or start kicking every indigenous person I see as a result of an apology being given. It will just cause me to sigh and roll my eyes. And then we'll have to find something else to talk about :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown Dog

was it ? why is there still an issue then ?

Im not a massive Kevin devote..really I couldnt care less who is in power (their all the same to me).....but.... all we have to go on so far is intentions. And as far as i can remember KR promised he would address this issue as an election promise...just like JH promised there would never be a GST :rolleyes:

---

This from Reconcile;

8. Why is the word ‘sorry’ important as part of the apology?

The word ‘sorry’ holds special meaning in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. In many Aboriginal communities, sorry is an adapted English word used to describe the rituals surrounding death (Sorry Business). Sorry, in these contexts, is also often used to express empathy or sympathy rather than responsibility.

During the 2007 election campaign, then Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd also recognised the significance of the word sorry:

“… simply saying that you’re sorry is such a powerful symbol. Powerful not because it represents some expiation of guilt. Powerful not because it represents any form of legal requirement. But powerful simply because it restores respect”

No wonder people like me get confused and dont "get it". Why not use the actual aboriginal word for empathy or sympathy instead of a bastardised englishword.

So here goes, truly from my heart.

"Dazzler wishes to express his Madja for the gaayinmara who were inappropriately taken from thier ngambaa and wish thier gii is thanga."

I can see that my red-neck reference was offensive, but I refuse to apologise, because that was in the past and I've disassociated myself from it on the grounds that I was in a different mood then. My vague and distorted memory of it is that, like Astrid, I was angered by some offensive threads. By red-neck I suppose I simple mean right-wing viewpoints such as those in the offensive threads, but I didn't have anyone in mind in particular.

What we have had in this thread is a whole series of members deciding what the indigenous people should want, how they should behave. This is at the crux of the problem: we've been pushing them around for 200 years. If we really do accept that they are our equals then we have to ask them what we need to do to fully accept them as ... us. They have told us that they have been hurt by some of our actions in the past, and that the first real step, albeit symbolic, is an apology for these actions. It really isn't that big a deal you know, and some of you who have contributed to this thread need to ask yourselves why it inspires such strong emotions in you. What is it saying about you? Is it because you're re ... , ooops, umm, people with a conservative outlook?:)

Ross,

Very ironic first paragraph. Well done.

woodbe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

IIt really isn't that big a deal you know, and some of you who have contributed to this thread need to ask yourselves why it inspires such strong emotions in you. What is it saying about you? Is it because you're re ... , ooops, umm, people with a conservative outlook?:)

---

No, it says we really don't think it's a big deal, and we're mystified as to why it's being made to be one.

P
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

"Dazzler wishes to express his Madja for the gaayinmara who were inappropriately taken from thier ngambaa and wish thier gii is thanga."

---

Did I see pics of you working in PNG building houses or something a while back?