|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Apartheid was a deeply twisted system that corrupted the whole society that will take generations to heal. |
In other words, if South Africa is still a violent, corrupt, and increasingly impoverished place in another 20 years time, it won't be the responsibility of the blacks in power, but the apartheid system put in place by the evil white man. That excuse will always be there. |
It would be nice to live in a magic world where someone could wave a magic wand and magically erase all of the evils that existed up until that moment; then history would have no effect anymore.
Erasing history is the ultimate dream of evil doers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Puleeze. That dog don't hunt. Look at the rise of China, eastern Europe and many other places in the last 30 years. Heck, Vietnam got bombed off the map 3 times this century and it is still recovering. It has everything to do with thabo mbeki and jacob zuma. Zuma in particular is a corrupt fool. |
Talk about apples and oranges. All those countries are fairly homogenous and did not have decades-long policies that encouraged the opposite. Also, while it was no picnic living under the iron curtain, people generally were well educated, especially in math and science.
While yes, Zuma is trash and Mbeki was not remarkable, i also think it is silly to compare eastern Europe, Vietnam, and China to South Africa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
One of the more trenchant comments on the Mandela coverage I've seen:
"Yeah it was cool that Nelson Mandela fought apartheid, but the BEST thing about him was that after he got out of prison he wasn't mean to white people." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Here's just one statement on Mandela from an amateur historian.
| Quote: |
Some conservatives say, ah, but [Nelson Mandela] was a communist.
Actually Mandela was raised in a Methodist school, was a devout Christian, turned to communism in desperation only after South Africa was taken over by an extraordinarily racist government determined to eliminate all rights for blacks.
I would ask of his critics: where were some of these conservatives as allies against tyranny? Where were the masses of conservatives opposing Apartheid? In a desperate struggle against an overpowering government, you accept the allies you have just as Washington was grateful for a French monarchy helping him defeat the British.
Finally, if you had been imprisoned for 27 years, 18 of them in a cell eight foot by seven foot, how do you think you would have emerged? Would you have been angry? Would you have been bitter?
Nelson Mandela emerged from 27 years in prison as an astonishingly wise, patient, and compassionate person.
He called for reconciliation among the races. He invited his prison guard to sit in the front row at his inauguration as President. In effect he said to the entire country, “If I can forgive the man who imprisoned me, surely you can forgive your neighbors.”
Far from behaving like a communist, President Mandela reassured businesses that they could invest in South Africa and grow in South Africa. He had learned that jobs come from job creators.
. . .
Before you criticize him, ask yourself, what would you have done in his circumstances? |
|
Okay I won't criticize Mandala...just the (obviously) "amateur" historian who wrote this.
(see bolded remarks)
Republicans defied their own president (Reagan) and allied with Democrats to override Reagan's veto and push a sanctions bill against South Africa which at the time was run by whites. 31 Republicans (a majority of Republicans voted for the sanctions bill. Since Republicans also tend to be convervatives...I'd say that answers it quite well.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/10/the-gop-s-apartheid-insurrection.html
As for the prison guard...that wasn't the man that imprisoned Mandala. Since when do prison guards make those decisions? He was just doing his job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Puleeze. That dog don't hunt. Look at the rise of China, eastern Europe and many other places in the last 30 years. Heck, Vietnam got bombed off the map 3 times this century and it is still recovering. It has everything to do with thabo mbeki and jacob zuma. Zuma in particular is a corrupt fool. |
Talk about apples and oranges. All those countries are fairly homogenous and did not have decades-long policies that encouraged the opposite. Also, while it was no picnic living under the iron curtain, people generally were well educated, especially in math and science. |
Until fairly recently the people of China received piss-poor educations, and the country has a number of official minority groups. The "free Tibet" freakout in the west is actually not entirely dissimilar in character to the "end apartheid" freakout; it's less intense (in no small part because China is no where near as easy to bully as South Africa), but it's based on the same misguided sense of pseudo-morality, and the Dali Lama has also gotten the celebrity treatment.
I have to admit, I don't much like this style of argumentation. "Oh, it's different, don't compare and contrast!" It's precisely because certain points are different that comparisons and contrasts are worth drawing. What's more important, however, is that the strongest points of contrast have little to do with the white apartheid-era government, and much to do with the character and culture of the African natives. It's not apartheid-era Blacks not having gotten "the best education that the country had to offer" or the debt run up by the apartheid-era government (which pales before the debt run up after apartheid ended) which is holding South Africa back in terms of economic prosperity, not really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Popocatepetl
Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Winter in Korea: One Perfect day after another
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
One of the more trenchant comments on the Mandela coverage I've seen:
"Yeah it was cool that Nelson Mandela fought apartheid, but the BEST thing about him was that after he got out of prison he wasn't mean to white people." |
What is sad is how in America white people can just shoot black people like Trevon Martin and get away with it.
I also heard that the races are segregated there and blacks don't live in the wealthy white neighborhoods. All because of skin tone.
Free William Potts and other freedom fighters who sacrifice their lives to bring racial equality to america. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Puleeze. That dog don't hunt. Look at the rise of China, eastern Europe and many other places in the last 30 years. Heck, Vietnam got bombed off the map 3 times this century and it is still recovering. It has everything to do with thabo mbeki and jacob zuma. Zuma in particular is a corrupt fool. |
Talk about apples and oranges. All those countries are fairly homogenous and did not have decades-long policies that encouraged the opposite. Also, while it was no picnic living under the iron curtain, people generally were well educated, especially in math and science. |
Until fairly recently the people of China received piss-poor educations, and the country has a number of official minority groups. The "free Tibet" freakout in the west is actually not entirely dissimilar in character to the "end apartheid" freakout; it's less intense (in no small part because China is no where near as easy to bully as South Africa), but it's based on the same misguided sense of pseudo-morality, and the Dali Lama has also gotten the celebrity treatment.
I have to admit, I don't much like this style of argumentation. "Oh, it's different, don't compare and contrast!" It's precisely because certain points are different that comparisons and contrasts are worth drawing. What's more important, however, is that the strongest points of contrast have little to do with the white apartheid-era government, and much to do with the character and culture of the African natives. It's not apartheid-era Blacks not having gotten "the best education that the country had to offer" or the debt run up by the apartheid-era government (which pales before the debt run up after apartheid ended) which is holding South Africa back in terms of economic prosperity, not really. |
Counterpoint, China has real history and identity, South Africa doesn't. Challenge, can you find any state, regardless of race or culture, where state identity is weak, usually states with artificial borders and no real history, that is doing well? Yugoslavia had white people, Iraq has Arabs and Kurds, and so on. The post colonial states that are doing well are those that have a strong national identity and history, i.e. China, India, and South Korea, the ones that don't are doing poorly regardless of race or culture. Comparing and contrasting is useful, but you have to be able to find the right variables.
Also, why use China for an example, the country is still really poor and underneath its powerful looking surface has lots of problems. South Africa has a higher GDP per person than China, and is in a much better neighborhood in terms of not being surrounded by dysfunctional countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Puleeze. That dog don't hunt. Look at the rise of China, eastern Europe and many other places in the last 30 years. Heck, Vietnam got bombed off the map 3 times this century and it is still recovering. It has everything to do with thabo mbeki and jacob zuma. Zuma in particular is a corrupt fool. |
Talk about apples and oranges. All those countries are fairly homogenous and did not have decades-long policies that encouraged the opposite. Also, while it was no picnic living under the iron curtain, people generally were well educated, especially in math and science. |
Until fairly recently the people of China received piss-poor educations, and the country has a number of official minority groups. The "free Tibet" freakout in the west is actually not entirely dissimilar in character to the "end apartheid" freakout; it's less intense (in no small part because China is no where near as easy to bully as South Africa), but it's based on the same misguided sense of pseudo-morality, and the Dali Lama has also gotten the celebrity treatment.
I have to admit, I don't much like this style of argumentation. "Oh, it's different, don't compare and contrast!" It's precisely because certain points are different that comparisons and contrasts are worth drawing. What's more important, however, is that the strongest points of contrast have little to do with the white apartheid-era government, and much to do with the character and culture of the African natives. It's not apartheid-era Blacks not having gotten "the best education that the country had to offer" or the debt run up by the apartheid-era government (which pales before the debt run up after apartheid ended) which is holding South Africa back in terms of economic prosperity, not really. |
Counterpoint, China has real history and identity, South Africa doesn't. Challenge, can you find any state, regardless of race or culture, where state identity is weak, usually states with artificial borders and no real history, that is doing well? Yugoslavia had white people, Iraq has Arabs and Kurds, and so on. The post colonial states that are doing well are those that have a strong national identity and history, i.e. China, India, and South Korea, the ones that don't are doing poorly regardless of race or culture. Comparing and contrasting is useful, but you have to be able to find the right variables.
Also, why use China for an example, the country is still really poor and underneath its powerful looking surface has lots of problems. South Africa has a higher GDP per person than China, and is in a much better neighborhood in terms of not being surrounded by dysfunctional countries. |
Does India really have a strong national identity and history? I think part of the reason it fumbles around and has not developed as quickly as China or South Korea is because it is hetrogenous. While a national party- Congress- was able to do well for the first few decades of India's existence, its success steadily decreased until it lost control of India's parliament to the BJP (plus there was the authoritarian period of Indira Ghandi). Sure, it took it back several years ago, but it was weaker and had to have more of a coalition with state parties, which have grown in significance in the past decade or two. And it looks like the BJP will win big in the next national elections.
The country has also had to deal with seperatist conflicts in a couple states, most notably Kashmir and Assam these days.
Anyway, I'm agreeing with you obviously but I would say India supports your argument in the opposite way you intended. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As your defense against the dark arts teacher to counter the so obvious supremist ideology of titus and bigverne (and others who jumped on for the ride) it MUST be said Mandela was a LION. End of story. 27 years in jail and wouldn't concede to what was basically Jim Crow and worse.
Fully deserving of the praise. If it weren't for him, South Africa would have gone into full civil war after his release. Spending 27 years, beaten at times and to forgive his oppressors is nothing short of sainthood. HE is the reason its peaceful and eventually became the BGGEST economy in Africa as "BRICS" nation.
Of course its going to have problems for a while. When you deny the MAJORITY of the population the chance to be part of society and have generations not prepared for leadership, the resulting growing pains is what happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Puleeze. That dog don't hunt. Look at the rise of China, eastern Europe and many other places in the last 30 years. Heck, Vietnam got bombed off the map 3 times this century and it is still recovering. It has everything to do with thabo mbeki and jacob zuma. Zuma in particular is a corrupt fool. |
Talk about apples and oranges. All those countries are fairly homogenous and did not have decades-long policies that encouraged the opposite. Also, while it was no picnic living under the iron curtain, people generally were well educated, especially in math and science. |
Until fairly recently the people of China received piss-poor educations, and the country has a number of official minority groups. The "free Tibet" freakout in the west is actually not entirely dissimilar in character to the "end apartheid" freakout; it's less intense (in no small part because China is no where near as easy to bully as South Africa), but it's based on the same misguided sense of pseudo-morality, and the Dali Lama has also gotten the celebrity treatment.
I have to admit, I don't much like this style of argumentation. "Oh, it's different, don't compare and contrast!" It's precisely because certain points are different that comparisons and contrasts are worth drawing. What's more important, however, is that the strongest points of contrast have little to do with the white apartheid-era government, and much to do with the character and culture of the African natives. It's not apartheid-era Blacks not having gotten "the best education that the country had to offer" or the debt run up by the apartheid-era government (which pales before the debt run up after apartheid ended) which is holding South Africa back in terms of economic prosperity, not really. |
Counterpoint, China has real history and identity, South Africa doesn't. Challenge, can you find any state, regardless of race or culture, where state identity is weak, usually states with artificial borders and no real history, that is doing well? Yugoslavia had white people, Iraq has Arabs and Kurds, and so on. The post colonial states that are doing well are those that have a strong national identity and history, i.e. China, India, and South Korea, the ones that don't are doing poorly regardless of race or culture. Comparing and contrasting is useful, but you have to be able to find the right variables.
Also, why use China for an example, the country is still really poor and underneath its powerful looking surface has lots of problems. South Africa has a higher GDP per person than China, and is in a much better neighborhood in terms of not being surrounded by dysfunctional countries. |
Does India really have a strong national identity and history? I think part of the reason it fumbles around and has not developed as quickly as China or South Korea is because it is hetrogenous. While a national party- Congress- was able to do well for the first few decades of India's existence, its success steadily decreased until it lost control of India's parliament to the BJP (plus there was the authoritarian period of Indira Ghandi). Sure, it took it back several years ago, but it was weaker and had to have more of a coalition with state parties, which have grown in significance in the past decade or two. And it looks like the BJP will win big in the next national elections.
The country has also had to deal with seperatist conflicts in a couple states, most notably Kashmir and Assam these days.
Anyway, I'm agreeing with you obviously but I would say India supports your argument in the opposite way you intended. |
That may be true. I don't know as much about India as I know about other countries. I get the feeling that there is a definite Indian identity from the Indians I've met, but these have all been Indian americans or from the elites. Also, I think there has been a traditional idea of the concept of India, but there hasn't been a traditional idea of Pakistan, explaining some of the reasons Pakistan is more troubled. I wish I knew more about this topic, but I do know there is a lot of competing identities, not sure if tribal identities are stronger there or national identities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Puleeze. That dog don't hunt. Look at the rise of China, eastern Europe and many other places in the last 30 years. Heck, Vietnam got bombed off the map 3 times this century and it is still recovering. It has everything to do with thabo mbeki and jacob zuma. Zuma in particular is a corrupt fool. |
Talk about apples and oranges. All those countries are fairly homogenous and did not have decades-long policies that encouraged the opposite. Also, while it was no picnic living under the iron curtain, people generally were well educated, especially in math and science. |
Until fairly recently the people of China received piss-poor educations, and the country has a number of official minority groups. The "free Tibet" freakout in the west is actually not entirely dissimilar in character to the "end apartheid" freakout; it's less intense (in no small part because China is no where near as easy to bully as South Africa), but it's based on the same misguided sense of pseudo-morality, and the Dali Lama has also gotten the celebrity treatment. |
South Africa was bullied? This is too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
Counterpoint, China has real history and identity, South Africa doesn't. Challenge, can you find any state, regardless of race or culture, where state identity is weak, usually states with artificial borders and no real history, that is doing well? Yugoslavia had white people, Iraq has Arabs and Kurds, and so on. The post colonial states that are doing well are those that have a strong national identity and history, i.e. China, India, and South Korea, the ones that don't are doing poorly regardless of race or culture. Comparing and contrasting is useful, but you have to be able to find the right variables. |
India? I visit one other forum in addition to this one: a history forum. I like Indian history, but I avoid almost all the Indian history threads, because they all devolve into massive flame wars between the Indian members. We're talking about a massive subcontinent that doesn't really share a common culture or even a common language; English is still as useful as it is there in no small part because it dodges intra-national identity tensions.
But what of much more successful nations? Does the UK have a real identity? The IRA didn't seem to think so, and these days they're is talk of Scottish secession as well. Or the United States for that matter? We've only got a few hundred years of history, bisected by a gigantic war in which differing cultural identity played no small part. It's a nation where people regularly talk about being a <something>-American, and those differing identities play into social and political tensions. Plenty of American subgroups have a history of aggression against others, a history of either discriminating or receiving discrimination, yet our nation hasn't devolved into a South African style mess just yet (except cities like Detroit arguably, in which case you should consider the most obvious point of comparison).
"We don't have a common identity" is not an excuse.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, why use China for an example, the country is still really poor and underneath its powerful looking surface has lots of problems. South Africa has a higher GDP per person than China, and is in a much better neighborhood in terms of not being surrounded by dysfunctional countries. |
Well first of all, I didn't bring up China, the two posters to whom I responded did. That said, where is your argument going here? First you start with, "Of course China is doing better than South Africa, they have a 'real history and identity!'" and then it transforms into, "Besides, China isn't even doing better than South Africa." I'm going to ask for clarification as to what you are actually arguing here, so that I can address it fairly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Puleeze. That dog don't hunt. Look at the rise of China, eastern Europe and many other places in the last 30 years. Heck, Vietnam got bombed off the map 3 times this century and it is still recovering. It has everything to do with thabo mbeki and jacob zuma. Zuma in particular is a corrupt fool. |
Talk about apples and oranges. All those countries are fairly homogenous and did not have decades-long policies that encouraged the opposite. Also, while it was no picnic living under the iron curtain, people generally were well educated, especially in math and science. |
Until fairly recently the people of China received piss-poor educations, and the country has a number of official minority groups. The "free Tibet" freakout in the west is actually not entirely dissimilar in character to the "end apartheid" freakout; it's less intense (in no small part because China is no where near as easy to bully as South Africa), but it's based on the same misguided sense of pseudo-morality, and the Dali Lama has also gotten the celebrity treatment. |
South Africa was bullied? This is too much. |
Call it whatever you want, the fact remains that the global community came down like a rock on South Africa -- in a fairly hypocritical fashion, all things considered -- and forced an outcome which ended up being sub-optimal. I don't approve of apartheid anymore than you do, but I don't approve of hasty "solutions" that lead to later problems for the sake of feel good displays of false virtue either. You shrugged off Popocatepetl, but he was right about one thing: the broader global community didn't give a damn about the actual people of South Africa, and westerners especially acted more out a sense of collective cultural guilt than anything principled. Strong-arming South Africa to make yourself feel better about a past regarding which you are ashamed? Yes, that's bullying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| HE is the reason its peaceful and eventually became the BGGEST economy in Africa as "BRICS" nation. |
That depends how you define 'peaceful,' as it is still one of the most violent countries in the world. Moreover, South Africa was already the biggest economy in Africa when Mandela took over.
That said, Mandela was certainly an inspirational figure who probably stopped the country from descending into civil war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Puleeze. That dog don't hunt. Look at the rise of China, eastern Europe and many other places in the last 30 years. Heck, Vietnam got bombed off the map 3 times this century and it is still recovering. It has everything to do with thabo mbeki and jacob zuma. Zuma in particular is a corrupt fool. |
Talk about apples and oranges. All those countries are fairly homogenous and did not have decades-long policies that encouraged the opposite. Also, while it was no picnic living under the iron curtain, people generally were well educated, especially in math and science. |
Until fairly recently the people of China received piss-poor educations, and the country has a number of official minority groups. The "free Tibet" freakout in the west is actually not entirely dissimilar in character to the "end apartheid" freakout; it's less intense (in no small part because China is no where near as easy to bully as South Africa), but it's based on the same misguided sense of pseudo-morality, and the Dali Lama has also gotten the celebrity treatment. |
South Africa was bullied? This is too much. |
Call it whatever you want, the fact remains that the global community came down like a rock on South Africa -- in a fairly hypocritical fashion, all things considered -- and forced an outcome which ended up being sub-optimal. I don't approve of apartheid anymore than you do, but I don't approve of hasty "solutions" that lead to later problems for the sake of feel good displays of false virtue either. You shrugged off Popocatepetl, but he was right about one thing: the broader global community didn't give a damn about the actual people of South Africa, and westerners especially acted more out a sense of collective cultural guilt than anything principled. Strong-arming South Africa to make yourself feel better about a past regarding which you are ashamed? Yes, that's bullying. |
I think its worth moving away from charged terms like "bullied" and "came down like a rock" and looking back at what it actually was; the international behavior towards South Africa.
There were scattered embargoes and some U.N. resolutions. South Africa had staunch supporters, notably Margaret Thatcher.
| Quote: |
Even as more countries added to the call for sanctions, Britain remained unwilling to sever her ties with the apartheid administration. Possible reasons were her copious assets in the state, an unwillingness to hazard turbulence brought on by intercontinental meddling, and the fact that many British people had kith and kin living in South Africa or, indeed, were living there themselves. Along with America, Britain would persistently vote against certain sanctions against South Africa.
South Africa rejoined the Commonwealth in 1994 |
America also supported South Africa.
| Quote: |
South Africa's conflict was a deeply divisive global political issue. See if you can guess which two countries were often on the wrong side of it. Yes, that's right: the United Kingdom and the United States.
In the 1960s, the U.S. did oppose apartheid, and supported arms embargoes against the South African government. But the Cold War changed that.
South Africa was staunchly anti-communist and an ally against the Soviet Union. The Soviets helped back the African National Congress. Starting in the 1970s, the U.S. and U.K. supported the apartheid government. Then-president Ronald Reagan called it "essential to the free world." His administration officially designated Mandela and the ANC as terrorists. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dismissed the ANC as "a typical terrorist organization."
Much of the rest of the world opposed the apartheid government, though, and many countries imposed economic sanctions and other restrictions. The issue became highly controversial within the U.S. and U.K. in the mid- and late-1980s as anti-apartheid movements gained strength there. Eventually, South Africa's two most important allies also turned against it. This helped make apartheid a burden on South Africa's whites as well, which helped bring about its end. |
With the End of the Cold War in 1989, U.S. disinvestment ramped up and the Apartheid government held negotiations with the ANC in 1990. In 1994 full elections occurred and Apartheid ended.
Basically, it was much like relations with Israel now, at least up until 1989, when America finally turned, having decided that apartheid South Africa was more repugnant than Communism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
