Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Desantis revision of Native American history

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by alaskazimm View Post

    Yes, but those tribal authorities (at least in the villages I've lived in) don't have law enforcement authority. Most of the working with the locals is just finding where the perp is hiding. Depending on who dun it and what family happens to be in power at the time kind of dictates how much help is given. There is the VPSO program (Village Public Safety Officer) who are largely natives (and they put up with a lot of push back from the locals!), but they aren't an entity to themselves and work closely with the AST. They do have the power to put suspects into custody but they are then turned over to the Troopers.
    Actually, yes - that sounds exactly like what I have seen (on TV). You have refreshicated my memory.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      OK, I don't know much about Alaska except what I see on TV, but that Alaska State Trooper show seems to portray the same thing --- when they have to go into a village of Alaskan Natives to arrest somebody, they work with the local authorities, yes?
      Oh, I won't claim its the only reason. I do believe it is a major contributor. Racism, exploitation, and many other things contributed. The reservation system works as an extra weight on a man who's struggling to swim in heavy seas.

      Of course, the problem is that you can't end the system without causing great harm in and of itself.


      Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 11-28-2022, 04:13 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
        Oh, I won't claim its the only reason. I do believe it is a major contributor. Racism, exploitation, and many other things contributed. The reservation system works as an extra weight on a man who's struggling to swim in heavy seas.

        Of course, the problem is that you can't end the system without causing great harm in and of itself.
        In a sense, though, it's kinda like the black community not having a leader to challenge them to excel --- I know at least two American Indians who left the Res to go to college escape the system.
        One of them is one of our lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom - the firm that is on retainer with our church.

        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

          In a sense, though, it's kinda like the black community not having a leader to challenge them to excel --- I know at least two American Indians who left the Res to go to college escape the system.
          One of them is one of our lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom - the firm that is on retainer with our church.
          Think of it like a company town whose plant has closed. Kids there face a similar conundrum. Stay, and likely end up in poverty, or move on and make a better life. Leaving means leaving the life you knew behind.

          However, the NAs have a higher price, culturally. They aren't just leaving home, they are also leaving thier people .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

            Think of it like a company town whose plant has closed. Kids there face a similar conundrum. Stay, and likely end up in poverty, or move on and make a better life. Leaving means leaving the life you knew behind.

            However, the NAs have a higher price, culturally. They aren't just leaving home, they are also leaving thier people .
            And at least in Alaska, and I would guess among the rest of the Native American tribes, it's not just their people. Family and family loyalty plays such a huge role in their lives, even more so than typically in our own lives. It's to such an extent that even moving from the village to go to college or trade school in Anchorage is a big reach for many just out of high school; so much so that they often move back to the village within months.
            We know J6 wasn’t peaceful because they didn’t set the building on fire.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
              Think of it like a company town whose plant has closed. Kids there face a similar conundrum. Stay, and likely end up in poverty, or move on and make a better life. Leaving means leaving the life you knew behind.
              Which is why they need somebody they trust - ideally one of their own - to encourage them on and help them move up.

              However, the NAs have a higher price, culturally. They aren't just leaving home, they are also leaving thier people .
              Understood, but that's a choice they make.

              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                Do you have an answer? What is the US government currently doing (or not doing) that is preventing Native American communities from prospering?

                As for whether or not Desantis lied, you would first have to make the case that the land was the rightful property of whatever native tribe happened to occupy it at the time, and considering the natives' views of ownership (that everything was theirs for the taking no matter who stood in their way), and their custom of regularly taking land and resources from each other in brutal and bloody conflict, that's a tough case.to make.
                Yes there were conflicts and wars among the Native American, but the above is not true. The Nations of the Native Americans were mostly regionally established, and your description custom of regularly taking land and resources from each other in brutal and bloody conflicts is a gross exaggeration.

                The history of the Iroquois Confederation is a classic of your contorted negative view of the Native American Nations:

                Iroquois League of Five Nations was Democratic Confederation dating to ~1142 AD

                Source: https://www.pbs.org/native-america/blogs/native-voices/how-the-iroquois-great-law-of-peace-shaped-us-democracy/#:~:text=The%20Iroquois%20Confederacy%20originally%20consisted,thepeople%20of%20the%20big%20hill%E2%80%9D



                How the Iroquois Great Law of Peace Shaped U.S. Democracy

                Wampum belt depicting the five nations of The Great Law of Peace.

                Much has been said about the inspiration of the ancient Iroquois “Great League of Peace” in planting the seeds that led to the formation of the United States of America and its representative democracy.

                The Iroquois Confederacy, founded by the Great Peacemaker in 11421, is the oldest living participatory democracy on earth2. In 1988, the U.S. Senate paid tribute with a resolution3 that said, "The confederation of the original 13 colonies into one republic was influenced by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy, as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the constitution itself."

                The peoples of the Iroquois Confederacy, also known as the Six Nations, refer to themselves as the Haudenosaunee, (pronounced "hoo-dee-noh-SHAW-nee"). It means “peoples of the longhouse,” and refers to their lengthy bark-covered longhouses that housed many families. Theirs was a sophisticated and thriving society of well over 5,000 people when the first European explorers encountered them in the early seventeenth century.
                Graphic depiction longhouses in Haudenosaunee settlement. From Native America, Episode Two titled Nature to Nations.

                The Iroquois Confederacy originally consisted of five separate nations – the Mohawks, who call themselves Kanienkehaka, or "people of the flint country,” the Onondaga, “people of the hills,” the Cayuga, “where they land the boats,” the Oneida, “people of the standing stone,” and the Seneca, “thepeople of the big hill” living in the northeast region of North America. The Tuscarora nation, “people of the shirt,” migrated into Iroquois country in 1722.

                “The Great Peacemaker4 brought peace to the five nations,” explains Oren Lyons in a 1991 interview with Bill Moyers. Lyons is the faith keeper of the Turtle Clan of the Seneca Nations, and a member of both the Onondaga and Seneca nations of the Iroquois Confederacy.

                At that time, the nations of the Iroquois had been enmeshed in continuous inter-tribal conflicts. The cost of war was high and had weakened their societies. The Great Peacemaker and the wise Hiawatha, chief of the Onondaga tribe, contemplated how best to bring peace between the nations. They traveled to each of the five nations to share their ideas for peace.

                A council meeting was called, and Hiawatha presented the Great Law of Peace. It united the five nations into a League of Nations, or the Iroquois Confederacy, and became the basis for the Iroquois Confederacy Constitution5.

                “Each nation maintained its own leadership, but they all agreed that common causes would be decided in the Grand Council of Chiefs,” Lyons said6. “The concept was based on peace and consensus rather than fighting." [/quote]

                Their constitution, recorded and kept alive on a two row wampum belt7, held many concepts familiar to United States citizens today.

                Restricts members from holding more than one office in the Confederacy. Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, also known as the Ineligibility Clause or the Emoluments Clause bars members of serving members of Congress from holding offices established by the federal government, while also baring members of the executive branch or judicial branch from serving in the U.S. House or Senate.
                Outlines processes to remove leaders within the Confederacy Article II, Section 4 reads “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and the conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
                Designates two branches of legislature with procedures for passing laws Article I, Section 1, or the Vesting Clauses, read “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” It goes on to outline their legislative powers.
                Delineates who has the power to declare war Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, also known as the War Powers Clause, gives Congress the power, “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
                Creates a balance of power between the Iroquois Confederacy and individual tribes The differing duties assigned to the three branches of the U.S. Government: Legislative (Congress), Executive (President), and Judicial (Supreme Court) act to balance and separate power in government.
                In 1744, the Onondaga leader Canassatego gave a speech urging the contentious 13 colonies to unite, as the Iroquois had at the signing of the Treaty of Lancaster. This cultural exchange inspired the English colonist Benjamin Franklin to print Canassatego’s speech.

                "We heartily recommend Union and a good Agreement between you our Brethren," Canassatego had said. "Never disagree, but preserve a strict Friendship for one another, and thereby you, as well as we, will become the stronger. Our wise Forefathers established Union and Amity between the Five Nations; this has made us formidable; this has given us great Weight and Authority with our neighboring Nations. We are a powerful Confederacy; and, by your observing the same Methods our wise Forefathers have taken, you will acquire fresh Strength and Power; therefore whatever befalls you, never fall out one with another."

                He used a metaphor that many arrows cannot be broken as easily as one. This inspired the bundle of 13 arrows held by an eagle in the Great Seal of the United States.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Did not answer the question: Did DeSantis liar pants on fire tell the truth when he said the USA did not steal Native American lands. remember the USA took lands from Native Americans establish by Treaty
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-28-2022, 06:47 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Did not answer the question: Did DeSantis liar pants on fire tell the truth when he said the USA did not steal Native American lands. remember the USA took lands from Native Americans establish by Treaty
                  I did answer the question. I just didn't answer it the way you wanted. Here's what one historian has to say about the matter:

                  Let us also acknowledge that Native American society was just as warlike as any other in human history. The anthropologists’ vision of Native Americans as peace-pipe-smoking environmentalists which gained purchase in the 1970s has long since given way to a more Hobbesian portrait of pre-Columbian reality. In North America, most Natives were primitive farmers. This means that (with some exceptions) they had no permanent settlements: they farmed in an area for a few decades until the soil got tired, before moving on to greener pastures where the hunting was better and the lands more fertile. This meant that tribes were in constant conflict with other tribes. It also meant that chiefs were continually vying for power, creating confederations under themselves, and that the question of who owned the land was in a more or less constant state of flux. In most of North America, the idea that any one piece of land belonged to any one tribe, for more than 50 or 100 years, is therefore highly questionable. In short, if you looked at a map of Native Canada 200 years before Europeans arrived, it would have been entirely different. In the meantime, some groups of natives would have slaughtered, bullied or enslaved others. Should we not be grieving for those Native Canadians whose land was stolen by other Native Canadians? Or is that somehow OK? I don’t suppose there is an app for that.

                  ​The idea that the Europeans stole some land which had belonged in perpetuity to any one tribe is therefore ludicrous. The situation in most of North America was similar to northern Europe on the eve of the Germanic migrations, or western Europe as the Celts were moving across the landscape. Precisely to whom the land belonged in any given century at these periods in history was anyone’s guess. The very notion of property is a Graeco-Roman invention which most cultures found foreign until quite recently. But Europeans of the time had little chance of grasping this difference. What the Europeans did in the New World was insert themselves into a fluid power struggle which had been ongoing for millennia. Many Native American chiefs were ready to pledge allegiance to the Great ‘Chief of the English’, as a political expedient, just as various English colonies sided with this or that Native American ‘Great Chief’. Despite a few sensational cases of duplicity, most of the time, Europeans tried to buy land from Indians, just like they would buy an acre of land in England. If the local chief assented to this and liked the price, where then was the crime? Many individual Europeans believed that according to the norms of both parties, they had legal usufruct to the land they were working. To judge this as theft is therefore anachronistic.

                  https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...tolen-country/

                  So, again, for your accusation against Desantis to have any weight, you would have to first make the case that the land in question rightfully belonged to whoever the last tribe was that happened to conquer it prior to the arrival of European settlers.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                    You are joking, right?
                    Looks like an accurate summary to me, what part did you think was a joke?

                    Comment


                    • PBS vs Stanford professor:


                      Source: http://hnn.us/articles/12974.html

                      7-21-2005
                      Did the Founding Fathers Really Get Many of Their Ideas of Liberty from the Iroquois?

                      by Jack Rakove


                      Jack Rakove is Coe Professor of History and American Studies, Professor of Political Science, at Stanford University.



                      Editor's Note: On Monday July 4th the New York Times published an op ed by journalist James Mann that made broad claims about the influence of the Iroquois on American constitutional history. Specifically, he argued that the Founding Fathers were deeply influenced by Indian ideas of liberty and that our very form of government was shaped in decisive ways by Indian influences at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. True? Others have advanced this argument in the past and even convinced NY State a few years ago to adopt this view in teaching assignments. We asked Stanford historian Jack Rakove to assess the legitimacy of Mann's argument.



                      _______________________________________

                      So vivid were these examples of democratic self-government [from colonial Indian history] that some historians and activists have argued that the [Indians'] Great Law of Peace directly inspired the American Constitution. Taken literally, this assertion seems implausible. With its grant of authority to the federal government to supersede state law, its dependence on rule by the majority rather than consensus and its denial of suffrage to women, the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law. But in a larger sense the claim is correct. The framers of the Constitution, like most colonists in what would become the United States, were pervaded by Indian images of liberty. -- James Mann, in the NYT (7-4-05)

                      The English colonists did not need the Indians to tell them about federalism or self-government. The New England Confederation was organized as early as 1643. The claim of influence is based on a very strange idea of causality: Franklin at the Albany Conference in 1754 learned about federalism and self-government from the Iroquois and then 33 years later at Philadelphia passed on these ideas to his fellow delegates at the Convention. Never mind that Franklin was very elderly and scarcely spoke at the Convention. For discussion of the issue see articles by Elisabeth Tooker in Ethnohistory vols 35 (1988) and 37 (1990).--Gordon Wood


                      When I studied for my oral exams back in 1970-1971, I did not read a single work relating in any sustained way to the history of Native Americans. There were not that many then worth reading, and even in my special field of early American history, where the hottest and most innovative historical writing was taking place, the subject commanded little apparent interest.

                      That has all changed since, of course. One cannot imagine preparing the early American field without reading the works of James Merrell, Dan Richter, Richard White, and others. Equally noteworthy is the way in which the very conceptualization of the field, the perspective from which it is viewed and reconstructed, has changed.

                      It therefore seems appropriate that the New York Times has just marked the 229th anniversary of American independence by allowing Charles Mann, author of the soon-to-be-published Before 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus to preview his book on its op-ed page. (By the way, am I wrong to think that the NYT has been doing more of this recently? Call your publicist!) Mann is a journalist, so we can expect the work to be something of a synthesis that won't tell historians much that they do not already know. But what disappointed me about this piece is that it recapitulates the tired and dubious argument about the purported Iroquois influence on the Constitution, and the more general proposition that important elements of Euro-American democratic culture have origins in "the democratic, informal brashness of American Indian culture."

                      What's wrong with the Iroquois influence hypothesis? There are two principal and, I think, fatal objections to the idea that anything in the Constitution can be explained with reference to the precedents of the Haudenosaunee confederation.

                      The first is a simple evidentiary matter. The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois. It is of course possible that the framers and ratifiers went out of their way to suppress the evidence, out of embarrassment that they were so intellectually dependent on the indigenous sources of their political ideas. But these kinds of arguments from silence or conspiratorial suppression are difficult for historians to credit.

                      But, it is objected, there were no real European antecedents and sources for the institutions that Americans created, or for the democratic mores by which they came to live. Again, this is a claim that cannot escape serious scrutiny. All the key political concepts that were the stuff of American political discourse before the Revolution and after, had obvious European antecedents and referents: bicameralism, separation of powers, confederations, and the like. Even on the egalitarian side of the political ledger, 17th-century English society did give rise, after all, to the radical sentiments and practices we associate particularly with the period of the Civil War and Commonwealth, the Levellers and the Putney debates, and the abolition of the House of Lords and the monatchy. And on this side of the water, New England colonists managed to set up town meetings before they had made much progress creating vocabularies of Indian words. The same can of course be said for the famous meeting of the Virginia assembly in 1619.

                      None of this is to deny that prolonged contact between the aboriginal and colonizing populations were important elements in the shaping of colonial society and culture. Whether those contacts left a significant political legacy, however, is a very different question.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      P1) If , then I win.

                      P2)

                      C) I win.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                        Designates two branches of legislature with procedures for passing laws
                        Some quick searching shows the Virginia colony had two houses after 1643, not to mention England had a bicameral system from 1341-1649 and then from 1657 onward.
                        P1) If , then I win.

                        P2)

                        C) I win.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post

                          Not at all, that is a fact...Bottom line Jim is that Europeans were the larger more advanced tribe.
                          Plus, sensibilities change with the times. The US also once dropped atom bombs on civilians, something that would never happen today (unless there was a cold-war ICBM exchange). The US government treated Native Americans brutally - by our standards today.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                            PBS vs Stanford professor:


                            Source: http://hnn.us/articles/12974.html

                            7-21-2005
                            Did the Founding Fathers Really Get Many of Their Ideas of Liberty from the Iroquois?

                            by Jack Rakove


                            Jack Rakove is Coe Professor of History and American Studies, Professor of Political Science, at Stanford University.



                            Editor's Note: On Monday July 4th the New York Times published an op ed by journalist James Mann that made broad claims about the influence of the Iroquois on American constitutional history. Specifically, he argued that the Founding Fathers were deeply influenced by Indian ideas of liberty and that our very form of government was shaped in decisive ways by Indian influences at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. True? Others have advanced this argument in the past and even convinced NY State a few years ago to adopt this view in teaching assignments. We asked Stanford historian Jack Rakove to assess the legitimacy of Mann's argument.



                            _______________________________________

                            So vivid were these examples of democratic self-government [from colonial Indian history] that some historians and activists have argued that the [Indians'] Great Law of Peace directly inspired the American Constitution. Taken literally, this assertion seems implausible. With its grant of authority to the federal government to supersede state law, its dependence on rule by the majority rather than consensus and its denial of suffrage to women, the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law. But in a larger sense the claim is correct. The framers of the Constitution, like most colonists in what would become the United States, were pervaded by Indian images of liberty. -- James Mann, in the NYT (7-4-05)

                            The English colonists did not need the Indians to tell them about federalism or self-government. The New England Confederation was organized as early as 1643. The claim of influence is based on a very strange idea of causality: Franklin at the Albany Conference in 1754 learned about federalism and self-government from the Iroquois and then 33 years later at Philadelphia passed on these ideas to his fellow delegates at the Convention. Never mind that Franklin was very elderly and scarcely spoke at the Convention. For discussion of the issue see articles by Elisabeth Tooker in Ethnohistory vols 35 (1988) and 37 (1990).--Gordon Wood



                            When I studied for my oral exams back in 1970-1971, I did not read a single work relating in any sustained way to the history of Native Americans. There were not that many then worth reading, and even in my special field of early American history, where the hottest and most innovative historical writing was taking place, the subject commanded little apparent interest.

                            That has all changed since, of course. One cannot imagine preparing the early American field without reading the works of James Merrell, Dan Richter, Richard White, and others. Equally noteworthy is the way in which the very conceptualization of the field, the perspective from which it is viewed and reconstructed, has changed.

                            It therefore seems appropriate that the New York Times has just marked the 229th anniversary of American independence by allowing Charles Mann, author of the soon-to-be-published Before 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus to preview his book on its op-ed page. (By the way, am I wrong to think that the NYT has been doing more of this recently? Call your publicist!) Mann is a journalist, so we can expect the work to be something of a synthesis that won't tell historians much that they do not already know. But what disappointed me about this piece is that it recapitulates the tired and dubious argument about the purported Iroquois influence on the Constitution, and the more general proposition that important elements of Euro-American democratic culture have origins in "the democratic, informal brashness of American Indian culture."

                            What's wrong with the Iroquois influence hypothesis? There are two principal and, I think, fatal objections to the idea that anything in the Constitution can be explained with reference to the precedents of the Haudenosaunee confederation.

                            The first is a simple evidentiary matter. The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois. It is of course possible that the framers and ratifiers went out of their way to suppress the evidence, out of embarrassment that they were so intellectually dependent on the indigenous sources of their political ideas. But these kinds of arguments from silence or conspiratorial suppression are difficult for historians to credit.

                            But, it is objected, there were no real European antecedents and sources for the institutions that Americans created, or for the democratic mores by which they came to live. Again, this is a claim that cannot escape serious scrutiny. All the key political concepts that were the stuff of American political discourse before the Revolution and after, had obvious European antecedents and referents: bicameralism, separation of powers, confederations, and the like. Even on the egalitarian side of the political ledger, 17th-century English society did give rise, after all, to the radical sentiments and practices we associate particularly with the period of the Civil War and Commonwealth, the Levellers and the Putney debates, and the abolition of the House of Lords and the monatchy. And on this side of the water, New England colonists managed to set up town meetings before they had made much progress creating vocabularies of Indian words. The same can of course be said for the famous meeting of the Virginia assembly in 1619.

                            None of this is to deny that prolonged contact between the aboriginal and colonizing populations were important elements in the shaping of colonial society and culture. Whether those contacts left a significant political legacy, however, is a very different question.

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            what I was responding to was Mountainman's post #135 that he asserted that the Native Americans were just savages 'and their custom of regularly taking land and resources from each other in brutal and bloody conflict,' The point is that most America was divided up into region nations such as the Irquios with governments. The Democratic Federation system of Government for the Iroquois dates from about 1140. The Native Americans along the Mississippi river had cities and organized systems of agriculture.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-28-2022, 10:41 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                              Plus, sensibilities change with the times. The US also once dropped atom bombs on civilians, something that would never happen today (unless there was a cold-war ICBM exchange). The US government treated Native Americans brutally - by our standards today.
                              More to the point, by the standard set forth in our nation's declaration of independence, and in the teachings of Christ.
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                                More to the point, by the standard set forth in our nation's declaration of independence, and in the teachings of Christ.
                                Christians have behaved badly often, and going far back. But I thought this was about the US, which was founded by a lot of deists.

                                Anyway, if Leftists want to single out the US for ridicule then so be it. But the inequity is glaring.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                62 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                247 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                330 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X