Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Mega-marsupials once roamed Australia

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Mega-marsupials once roamed Australia
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

"The left," "the far left," and "a leftist" have clear meaning, at least in the American academe.

"The far right" and "the right-wing" do, too.

While not everyone's views neatly fit into one or the other of these admitedly artificial and dichotomous categories (I can say with confidence that, on this board, neither mine, On the Other Hand, Kuros, or Bucheon Bum's do, for example). But I would say that only someone unreasonably committed to an oppositionist position would argue that there are not at least some -- and some of those some are under discussion in this thread -- do not really exist.Do you really mean to suggest that someone like your beloved Coulter does not squarely fit into one of these categories, Gang ah jee? How about if I told you I was planning on posting a Guardian or Counterpunch op-ed piece on Israel...? How about a new book from Britain's Verso Press on American foreign relations? Or Australia's Ocean or Oceanview Press? Are you telling me that you would really have a hard time predicting their slant and conclusions? If not, why not?

Well, I've been using the terms too, haven't I? They have certain uses, but I'm more interested in the argument that revisionism isn't a problem so much of the left or right as such, but of identity politics. The left may be more sympathetic to environmental revisionism, but, again, the right may be more sympathetic to Creationism, for example. This isn't an excuse to label all on the right as creationists, however, or to talk about creationism as if it were specifically the domain of the right - it's easy enough to imagine left-wing creationists.

So perhaps what you are arguing this depends on your definition of 'leftist', but since your definition of leftist includes me, I feel the need to argue that you're over-attributing the position. Perhaps instead I should be arguing that I'm not a leftist? And what of Jared Diamond when he romanticises the Kalahari Bushmen?

Quote:

Also, I would still like an answer to the question I posed about Menchu, above.

Oh yes, I think you added that as an edit and I missed it the first time through. It is a very interesting question though.

Quote:

But how, then, do you propose we treat such claims and allegations as Menchu has put forward...? Claims that Natives did not kill or war until White Men forced them to learn? Claims that Menchu's anscestors used to talk to local animals, kind of like in a Disney film? or that they all lived in communes where even men and women acted as pure equals, with no sexual discrimination or mistreatment...? (These and other similar claims pervade her autobiography, by the way.)

Menchu's claims are quasi-religious mythologising, and require about as much serious thought as claims that Koreans are descended from the offspring of a bear that was able to eat garlic prodigiously. One would hope that anyone with minimal education would see them for what they are, and that their repetition as 'fact' in scholarship or education should be opposed, as Creationism is in most western contexts. Of course, part of her implication is that in order to return to their idyllic pre-colonisation state (i.e., to regain their dignity), her people should reject violence and sexual inequality, which are presumably major social problems in this context. From this perspective, there may be some use in this kind of meta-narrative - a similar versions of this argument have been promoted in New Zealand -for example, the film 'Once Were Warriors' if you've seen that. I can't view the explicit blaming of the 'white man' as being positive, however.

Quote:

And finally, I have never heard anyone exploiting or developing the White-Man's-burden position you articulate above. That was a nineteenth-century phenomenon that died by the mid-twentieth. Can you cite any specific cases in the last five to ten years where anyone at all has argued that position, Gang ah jee?

As I said Gopher, apart from the Japanese right-wing position (check out the thread in General if you'd like to see white men arguing for it), my experience with colonial apologia it is anecdotal, but it's not particularly uncommon. It may have died in mainstream Western academia, but it's still alive.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject:

gang ah jee wrote:

...I'm more interested in the argument that revisionism isn't a problem so much of the left or right as such, but of identity politics.

That is fine with me. Expand the discussion. First, I prefer that you concede my point that leftists (that is, as I have clearly stated here and elsewhere, those whose ideological stance compels them to press their attack against industrialism, capitalism, the West that created it, and the United States who perpetuates and currently dominates it under the pretext of "environmentalism," "bleeding-heart nativism," or any number of devices) have gotten far out of line with their romanticization of preindustrial, nonWestern peoples and cultures. Willing to do that?

Also, I detect another case of mistaken identify in your posts. So allow me to clarify: I do not argue or in any way imply that preindustrial, nonWestern peoples and cultures' behavior towards the enviornment or each other means that they deserve their fate or should not qualify for land reform or any other compensation which might be in the pipeline.

My own position is that things are where they are. We ought to find ways to incorporate, include, forgive, and peaceably coexist with one another as a species rather than remaining so hung up on the past. If we are alive today and inhabiting land, it is probably because our anscestors did uncountable terrible things to their contemporaries -- all of us.

I propose "get over it."

Do you propose spending the rest of our time as a functioning civilization mired in hand-wringing over our own complicity in this or shall we move forward in as constructive a way as possible? This question may be phrased in a way that certainly stakes out my own position. But I believe in letting the chips fall where they may. If people want to dwell on past horrors and injustices forever, so be it.

Let everyone arrive at their own moral position with respect to all of us, then. However, these preindustrial, nonWestern peoples and cultures share not only our humanity but each and every one of our faults as well. That is to say, if we are all the same -- and I believe that we are -- then we are all the same.

I have seen sufficient evidence in the archaeological and historical records treating the megafaunal overkill "least improbable hypothesis," pre-Contact bloodthirsty imperialism and warfare -- and yes, even capitalist, market-style economies like that in Mesoamerica -- not to mention the Maoris' treatment of the Moriori, to make up my mind on this subject.

This was long-winded. Hopefully you will grasp what I am trying to say -- my favorite rock-throwing detractor who is undoubtedly lurking about notwithstanding...

gang ah jee wrote:

...perhaps what you are arguing this depends on your definition of 'leftist...'

Look. It is very simple.

Exhibit A: Leftists talk like Burgos-Debray makes Menchu talk about pre-Contact [read: preindustrial] Native Americans.

Exhibit B: Leftists talk like Kinzer and Schlesinger talk about Juan Jose Arevalo, "a teacher who took power" in post-Ubico Guatemala, a humble teacher who merely wanted to launch an audacious social experiment. But "powerful American interests" [read: capitalist corporations] would not stand for it. So they manipulated the government to act on their behalf.

Nevermind that Arevalo helped overthrow Costa Rica's constitutionally-elected government, or that he launched multiple paramilitary covert operations against the Trujillo's Dominican Republic, Somoza's Nicaragua, and Venezuela with the intent of creating a new Caribbean superstate with -- I will give you three guesses who -- a single president at the top.

Again, this is not to argue that Arevalo and his successor Arbenz therefore deserved to be overthrown. Arrive at whatever moral or other conclusion you like. Please, however, do not try to tell me that Arevalo was a mere humble teacher who just wanted to help everybody out in Guatemala...

Exhibit C: Leftists talk like In_Seoul_2003 talks about Allende. Professional leftist authors like Jonathan Haslam wants us to know that Allende behaved "without guile."

Zepezauer tells us that Chile was "a peace-loving country" before the United States maliciously turned it into "a slaughterhouse."

If you like, I can easily deconstruct this one, piece by piece and show you each and every romanticization, from his characterization of the Chilean armed forces to Allende's background as a mere physician. Let me know...

In the meantime, nevermind Chile's treatment of its Native peoples and cultures from the nineteenth-century until the present day; nevermind its aggression in the War of the Pacific; nevermind this "democracy's" history of coups d'etat; and nevermind Allende's dealings with Moscow and Havana and his hundred-million-dollar arms deal or his intent and moves to back a Puerto Rican guerrilla movement against American authorities.

Again, I in no way seek to justify Allende's overthrow or defend Washington's involvement in it. However, please do not paint Allende as an innocent saintly man.

Exhibit D: Read William Blum (or Phillip Agee, for that matter) and tell me that you are not sure what "leftist" means in this context: romanticizing the peace-loving and friendly Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc., etc., juxtaposed against a bullying, warmongering, capitalist-corrupted America.

Exhibit E: A female colleague who does not share the feminist agenda recently spoke of multiple complaints against her in end-of-the-semester surveys from a "womens' studies" course she guest-taught.

These students, upper-classmen and Master's students, have been so deeply conditioned and indoctrinated that women are the virtuous victims of male-gendered books and teachings, that when she did not lecture on the anti-woman bias in the course's readings, and I do not recall what they were, that therefore she must have been a complicit oppressor of women herself, she must have been deliberately concealing these readings' anti-woman biases.

Absurd. But just one additional consequence of leftist pc run amok: every book out there must be biased against women. If you do not point this out or dwell on it, then you must be in on the lie...

gang ah jee wrote:

...but since your definition of leftist includes me, I feel the need to argue that you're over-attributing the position. Perhaps instead I should be arguing that I'm not a leftist?

Gang ah jee: are you sure this is not more a case of mistaken identity than anything else?

I was not arguing against you, personally, in any way at all on this thread.

gang ah jee wrote:

Menchu's claims are quasi-religious mythologising, and require about as much serious thought as...One would hope that anyone with minimal education would see them for what they are, and that their repetition as 'fact' in scholarship or education should be opposed, as Creationism is in most western contexts.

I agree. Unfortunately, the Nobel Committee and multiple leftist professors do not. And I have seen this book presented as the autobiography that it most certainly is not to vast numbers of undergraduates who know no better than to take it at face value.

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

This was long-winded. Hopefully you will grasp what I am trying to say -- my favorite rock-throwing detractor who is undoubtedly lurking about notwithstanding...

Yes, generally I agree, though perhaps with reservations on exactly what 'gone to far' means. I tend to think of that kind of 'scholarship' as more irritating and wasteful than anything else, but obviously we have different starting points on this.

And yes, things are the way they are, no one's history is innocent, and we need to get on with things for the good of everyone. At the same time though, past injustices do still have effects today (which are, as you know, still very visible in New Zealand), and these do need to be redressed for the sake of a healthy society. Of course, how the legacy of colonialism can be redressed without reference to a divisive and destructive discourse of victims and villains - that's a problem (and getting really far from the thread topic).

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject:

gang ah jee wrote:

...perhaps with reservations on exactly what 'gone too far' means.

Do you agree with me that Paul E. Sigmund's criticism of the literature treating the Chilean coup is spot on...?

Paul E. Sigmund wrote:

As I hope this book will demonstrate, neither Frei nor Allende fits into the neat categories that the mythmakers of left and right have assigned to them. Frei was neither the willing tool of foreign and domestic reaction nor the initiator of a social revolution in Chile, but a dedicated democrat who tried to use constitutional channels to promote a greater degree of social justice for low-income groups. Allende was neither an innocent social democrat overthrown by fascist thugs and the CIA, nor a Marxist revolutionary who manipulated Chile's democratic institutions in order to set the stage for a violent Communist seizure of power. Rather, he was a skilled parliamentary politician committed to aiding the poor and underprivileged, who could never abandon his romantic admiration for those, like Castro and Guevara, who had waged a successful armed revolution. When at last the contradiction between parliamentarism and revolution led to his overthrow, he chose to die holding a submachine gun which was a gift from Fidel Castro...Although there has been no lack of angry rhetoric and suspicion about the overthrow of Salvador Allende's socialist government...no one has yet offered an exhaustive, objective account of what happened, or a balanced analysis of how and why it occurred...[emphasis added]

Paul E. Sigmund, The Overthrow of Allende and the Politics of Chile.

"Going too far," then, means miring the debate in someone else's partisan bitterness. More than mere perspective or point of view. We cannot be objective. That is impossible. Very well. By why must that license us to embrace partisan bitterness?

And, to clarify, it is not only the left's romanticization and mythmaking that I take issue with, especially when I publish. See also Lt. Col. Patrick J. Ryan's hyperbolic "1,000 Bungled Days" for the other side.

In any case, if this seems reasonable to you, then we are in agreement.

Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:14 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

In any case, if this seems reasonable to you, then we are in agreement.

Indeed we are.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:33 pm Post subject:

gang ah jee wrote:

Of course, how the legacy of colonialism can be redressed without reference to a divisive and destructive discourse of victims and villains - that's a problem (and getting really far from the thread topic).

Actually, Gang ah jee, this takes us back to the original issue and reminds us of its intractably controversial nature.

People have been forcing preindustrial Native peoples and cultures into the innocent victim's hat for quite a while now. Either/or again. And for the ulterior motives I am confident I have sufficiently identified, above.

Yet they are victim and villain. And they are also neither victim nor villain. Just like everyone else in human history. There are no Mother Teresas among us. Even Mother Teresa was not exactly what she has been made out to be, either.

This is the best way of moving on: break the pattern of this discourse and create a new one. One without black and white hats.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:30 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

Do you propose spending the rest of our time as a functioning civilization mired in hand-wringing over our own complicity in this or shall we move forward in as constructive a way as possible? This question may be phrased in a way that certainly stakes out my own position. But I believe in letting the chips fall where they may. If people want to dwell on past horrors and injustices forever, so be it.

Page 4

Quote:

All megafaunal extinctions occurred within a thousand years of Homo sapiens's arrival whereever they went (the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Madagascar, in that order, to cite but four well-known cases).

How do you account for that coincidence?

Page 1

Note: Politically loaded use of "all".

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:40 am Post subject:

gang ah jee wrote:

Another thing, Gang ah jee: I have taken these introductory remarks and discussion questions from a freshman-level textbook in a class I teach on the Early American Republic.

Quote:

...Most observers concluded that this [pre-Columbian ecological] balance was profoundly disrupted by the colonizers' acquisitiveness and preoccupation with economic development. Search the documents for evidence of these changes.

Quote:

In what way was the Indian way of life adapted to the natural environment? What do the documents reveal about the ecological impact of European encroachment? How was the ecological balance affected by European expansion? How did this disruption influence the human component of the ecologic system?

This really goes to the heart of the issue. What if this "pre-Columbian ecological balance" is more imagined, more romanticized, than real? I believe the answer to this question begins with the extinctions this thread treats -- that is, when these Native peoples and cultures themselves colonized virgin lands like Australia, the Americas, and the Pacific Islands.

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:07 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

This is the best way of moving on: break the pattern of this discourse and create a new one. One without black and white hats.

Yes, though of course this is a lot easier said than done. How does one separate culture from history?

Quote:

Another thing, Gang ah jee: I have taken these introductory remarks and discussion questions from a freshman-level textbook in a class I teach on the Early American Republic.

Quote:

This really goes to the heart of the issue. What if this "pre-Columbian ecological balance" is more imagined, more romanticized, than real? I believe the answer to this question begins with the extinctions this threat treats -- when these Native peoples and cultures themselves colonized virgin lands like Australia, the Americas, and the Pacific Islands...

I see your point that this textbook does appear to draw a false dichotomy between the harmonious Indians and the rapacious colonists. At the same time, however, isn't this kind of ecological history necessary to understanding much of the conflict between Native Americans and Europeans in American history? I can't say that I'm particularly familiar with the North American situation, but in a New Zealand context, my understanding is that the ecological transformation of land from a state useful to Maori to a state useful to European agriculture was a major factor in the prolonged conflict between the groups.

I do see though that vague, softheaded phrases like 'ecological balance' and 'adapted to the natural environment' can't make your job any easier, and that encouraging students to question the use of these terms could get one labelled as 'racist'. I'm not sure though that prefacing such issues with discussions about mass extinctions is the way to approach the topic, however. As Manner of Speaking pointed out, such extinctions most likely took place in a way that seemed perfectly sustainable when viewed in the short run, dispite their consequences in the long run. An individual Maori hunter spearing a moa to feed his family , though it may lead to the extinction of the Moa hundreds of years hence, doesn't really seem equivalent to the centrally organised large-scale dispossession and rapid clearance of land.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject:

gang ah jee wrote:

Yes, though of course this is a lot easier said than done. How does one separate culture from history?

I would phrase it differently: I am proposing a conscious break with the past in order to get on with an original, unencumbered future where we might find more possibilities than the static, neverending politics of blame give us...

gang ah jee wrote:

I see your point that...

As you might already know, I consider it a good day if my students -- babes in the woods, all of them -- have actually read the material attentively enough to get into this debate at all. Once they do, I rarely intervene except to clarify their issues and the questions and answers they sometimes exchange with each other. I consider it the greatest of compliments that one once complained that I never divulge my own view on this or that. (Thank you for making that point so strongly, Max Weber.)

Most freshmen do not consciously engage these issues, though. It is the unconscious language that I cite here between us, where I talk much more freely than in a formal, university classroom. In any case, ultimately, I only have fifty minutes with them at a time and they mostly just want to know "what's on the test." "Whose fault is it?" usually asks whose fault is it so many readings are on the syllabus...

gang ah jee wrote:

...my understanding is that the ecological transformation of land from a state useful to Maori to a state useful to European agriculture was a major factor in the prolonged conflict between the groups.

Now you are articulating this in a way I can sincerely respect. Yes, clearly such transformative processes occurred all over the New World and everywhere else the Europeans colonized. And this partly drove conflict -- something that persists.

gang ah jee wrote:

I'm not sure though that prefacing such issues with discussions about mass extinctions is the way to approach the topic...

I disagree. We ought to begin at the beginning. And this story begins when Homo sapiens left Eurasia tens of thousands of years ago, for Australia, for Siberia and the Americas, and for Polynesia and Madagascar. Early Modern Europeans launched a "second wave," so to speak, between approximately 1500 to the present.

What consequences did these events produce to the virgin, prehuman-intervention ecology? And can we "recover" or "stabilize" the "damage?"

That would seem to be the question.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:39 am Post subject:

Something for you nasty boys to get excited about (shame I couldn't find one in a bikini): a giant wombat known as Diprotodon australis

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject:

Thanks for that, Big_Bird. It is a very sexy animal, but we need some scale. It just looks like a lanky, ugly normal wombat.

Gopher wrote:

McGarrett's Jane Fonda thread had me thinking about Viet Nam again, and I remembered the irony that the average Hanoiian harbours less resentment towards the US that the average Seoulite. My understanding is that the Vietnamese government has actively promoted reconciliation with the US, and the Vietnamese education system teaches that while the actions of the US government was misguided, the American people had always opposed the war. More than that, Vietnamese are taught to be intensely proud of their successful 30 year war of independence against some of the world's great powers, and that now is the time for peace and friendship. Contrast that to Korea, where both the US and Japan are run through the blame mill whenever politically expedient, even though it would be very easy to promote a discourse in Korea that was able to look at the challenges of their history in a positive light - and indeed, they should have a lot to feel positive about, given that many countries have failed to do what Korea has done. These are the kinds of cases where I agree with you that it's better just to move on.

On the other hand, taking the example of New Zealand (again forgive me, but it's close to home), the Europeans caused incredible disruptions to Maori culture, and the scars are still very visable. Not only did Maori become essentially foreigners on their own soil, but until very recently they were also denied full access to the apparatus of power in New Zealand society. Even now, despite equal legal access, the many Maori don't have the necessary cultural and economic capital to 'succeed' in New Zealand society at a rate similar to Europeans or Asians. Thus, if we're hoping to redress this at all (or even to understand the how of redress), we have to understand the reasons for the current situation. We can't do this without reference to colonisation and its effects. (Of course, that's not to say that a culture of victimhood amongst Maori and other dispossessed people isn't also a factor in the problems.)

Ugh, what I've written looks a bit disjointed. I hope it's clear enough.

Bringing it back to mega-fauna and the textbook you cited, drawing parallels between mass-extinctions and colonisation still seems to me like drawing a parallel (and forgive the over-simplification) between finding and stealing. What I would argue for however, (and I think we're very much in agreement on this) is active agency on the part of colonised peoples needs to be taught and understood much more than it is. Of course, how possible this is will depend much on the specific context - it's quite easy to develop an accurate and empowering narrative of Maori as active, pragmatic users of resources and relationships. Other groups, however, haven't had the resources to withstand cultural contact with Europe, however, and I think that we should not forget the crimes that were committed against them, if only because some of these groups no longer have a voice with which to remind us that they were even ever here.

Of course, from an environmental education stand point, educating about extinctions caused by indigenous people is incredibly valuable - it really does bring to the fore that if stone age peoples are able to cause such serious environmental damage, what we are doing is orders of magnitude worse.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: ...

Is that really a giant wombat? Or is it a giant Gopher?

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

On the absolute lack of imagination and indeed meaningless of the term, how about a little George Orwell...?

George Orwell wrote:

The word "Fascism" has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."

As any good student of the Young Ones knows....

Rik wrote:

FASCIST! That's what happens to people who aren't working class!

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

One professor commented the other day that Chomsky had no idea what he was talking about when he defended twentieth-century Japanese moves in East Asia as moves merely designed to liberate the area from Western Europe's imperialist grip...

Just to gravedig this thread, I was wondering about a source for Chomsky defending Japanese imperialism in the manner the professor suggested. I'm curious, because Chomsky defending Japanese imperialism seems incredibily unlikely, and because it also seems to contradict what he has himself said on the topic in the past. For example, here's a transcript of part of the question and answer period from his 2005 talk "Illegal but Legitimate" where he mentions Japanese imperialism as an unintentionally democratising force:

Chomsky: You could argue, and I think it's probably true, that the conquest of Baghdad was such a shock in the Arab world - I mean this is like the mongol invasion from their point of view - it was such a shock in the Arab world that it set off shockwaves that are doing all sorts of things, and, you know, among them may be pressing for democracy.

But anybody who thinks you ought to praise that ought to be out on the streets next December 7th cheering the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbour, because the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour, you know, capture of Singapore and so on, set off huge currents in all of Asia which led to throwing out the Western imperialists. I mean, that saved millions of lives in India alone, let alone who knows how many more elsewhere. Do we praise the Japanese for their democratizing efforts? Yeah, if you hit some system with a sledgehammer all kind of things are going to happen, and some of them may turn out to be beneficial, like the Japanese invasion, the bombing of Pearl Harbour.

So, you know, yes, the capture of Baghdad was a tremendous shock in the Arab world. That's the center of Arab culture and history and so on, conquered by the mongols again. Of course it's going to set off an effect.

Host: I somehow envision that soundbite being taken out and used in other ways ... but we're all witnesses to the context.

Chomsky: [laughing] Yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvVNshIXWzk&mode=related&search= from about 1:00

So yeah, I would be interested in sources if you happen to know of any.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe