babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Genetic evidence for Anglo-Saxon apartheid

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Genetic evidence for Anglo-Saxon apartheid
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 18 July 2006 04:26 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Which just goes to show how concepts of race change over time, since today most people would consider Celts (Britons) and Anglo-Saxons to be part of the same race.

quote:
Scientists believe a small population of migrants from Germany, Holland and Denmark established a segregated society when they arrived in England.

The researchers think the incomers changed the local gene pool by using their economic advantage to out-breed the native population.

The team tells a Royal Society journal that this may explain the abundance of Germanic genes in England today.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5192634.stm


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 18 July 2006 07:25 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I double dog dare you to state the below at the next Robbie Burns dinner or St. Pats parade1

quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
Which just goes to show how concepts of race change over time, since today most people would consider Celts (Britons) and Anglo-Saxons to be part of the same race.
[/URL]


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 18 July 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
Which just goes to show how concepts of race change over time, since today most people would consider Celts (Britons) and Anglo-Saxons to be part of the same race.

I suppose they are. In fact, the entire 'race' idea in humans is completely arbitrary: scientifically, we're all one race.

The celts (ie britons) and germans (ie anglo-saxons) were two or the indo-european tribes which erupted from somewhere in central asia. They're vaguely related to each other, but not closely.

During the time of the saxon invasions, the native britons experienced the invaders as blonde giants.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 18 July 2006 11:35 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

During the time of the saxon invasions, the native britons experienced the invaders as blonde giants.


You're confusing it with the Viking invaders a wee bit later on, who were the blonde giants.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 19 July 2006 01:11 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And the red headed Irish. Of course, all the nationalities are descendents of a bunch of hairy hunter gatherers from way way way back. But i guess they used to get snitty about their 'space' back then too.

Of course, some groups figureed out that divide and conquer has always been the simplest way of controlling populations. As long as they compete with each other, they will not have time or energy to focus on the guys behind the curtain counting out the day's take and laughing at the marks


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749

posted 19 July 2006 02:13 AM      Profile for Yst     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

I suppose they are. In fact, the entire 'race' idea in humans is completely arbitrary: scientifically, we're all one race.


I tend to think the early Anglo-Saxons for the most part agreed, which is why I find the modern concept of race being imposed on them problematic. The Anglo-Saxons themselves, after all, were a mish-mash of assorted tribes who had nothing in common beyond that they spoke mutually intelligible languages and shared a similar heroic/meritocratic warrior tradition. Much like the assortment of Mongolic peoples who later came to form the beginnings of the Mongol Empire. The concept of ethnicity you find in the Anglo-Saxon literature is not one of race but of tribe, kingdom and family. The idea that dozens of kingdoms and tribes and family lines share a common interest due to shared genetic material strikes me as nonsensically foreign to the Anglo-Saxon notion of identity.


From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 19 July 2006 09:14 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:

You're confusing it with the Viking invaders a wee bit later on, who were the blonde giants.

The Vikings and Saxons were closely related, being the north and west branches of the germanic people, respectively.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 19 July 2006 09:18 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yst:

The idea that dozens of kingdoms and tribes and family lines share a common interest due to shared genetic material strikes me as nonsensically foreign to the Anglo-Saxon notion of identity.

Nonetheless, the various tribes of saxons and angles had no difficulty telling "us" (other anglo-saxons) from 'them' (the celts and roman remnants in britian).


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 July 2006 11:48 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the Saxons arrived in England more out of necessity than as conquerors. They were trying to avoid being overrun by the Hun's. The Saxon's were considered barbaric by Roman's, but at least they cooked their meat. The Hun's weren't bothered with barbequeing.

And I believe the Celtic gene pool is widespread. They originated in N. India and spread out across the Mediterranean into Italy, N. Africa, Spain and British Isles. I believe they are the finer featured of us compared to the broad-featured Anglo-Saxon descendants. Nobody's pure anything anymore, we can be sure of that.

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 July 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

The Vikings and Saxons were closely related, being the north and west branches of the germanic people, respectively.


I was told that true Vikings were from either Denmark or Norway, the original seafaring Vikings. I think there are some Norwegian names that almost sound German when pronounced but are spelled differently. But I imagine the German's could have had an adventuresome streak with some access to beach front property. Russian's are supposed to be a mix of Swedish Vikings and Mongols. Some relatives of mine sailed from Norway to South Yorkshire England about 500 years ago and have owned anywhere from three to five market garden-farms ever since, and there was no sacking or looting necessary.

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 19 July 2006 08:31 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Angles and Saxons were somewhat different
Same goes for the various Celts. You'd be hardpressed to find a lot of cultural similarities between the Celts that now inhabit Cornwall and the Celts that inhabited Eire. Even then, Celt has grown to be a general term for all the people of Britain. Many scholars would disagree with such an assessment.

s1mon - I've never heard of the theory of the Germans being of Central Asian origin. Same goes for the British Celts.

All said we're interposing modern ideas on a past where these ideas were not existenbt and the environment was totally alien to us. These arguments are often used as a form of political leverage and are very dangerous.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 19 July 2006 09:46 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some of the south germans (Mannheim area) think of themselves as mostly kelts. They dont concider themselves as tall or as blond as germans from, say, Hanover in the north. And from my little time there, the size difference seems true.
I am sure the tribes are pretty well mixed at this stage and nobody should worry too much about it.
Herr Storr, (who I worked for), explained the brilliance of south west germany this way.
We have always been invaded. and the invaders leave some of their genes and culture each time.
He had a prominent 'roman nose' and was a wine producer. some really nice wine.
Anyways, on the day I left his employment, the told me that he was a wine goose. the wild geese were irish familys that left (forced to leave) after one of the english invasions of ireland.
Storr might be Store in ireland. I went to school with a guy with that surname.
(Wine geese, because they took money with them and some of the more famous french wines and brandys have irish names).

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749

posted 20 July 2006 12:25 AM      Profile for Yst     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another contradictory factor which defies the idea that the Anglo-Saxons would adopt a racial apartheid is the attestation of a culture of exogamy which pervades much early Germanic literature. The heroic tradition consistently features intermarriage with other groups as a strategic asset to practical tribal politics. And much has been made of the role of the woman as freothuwebbe, as diplomat, marrying into foreign peoples and thereby serving to forge profitable ties to other nations. Over the past few decades, the popular viewpoint has increasingly (now almost completely) moved towards the view that the Anglo-Saxon 'conquest' of Britain was essentially an apocryphal propaganda trip by the English, where mass migration and economic success had far more to do with it in reality.

The Anglo-Saxon literary canon seems to hold strongly to the view that exogamous intermarriages between Geats and Swedes and Danes and Frisians and Saxons and Angles were an admirable and virtuous thing, and never have I read or heard anything to suggest that despite this being the case, there was any associated view that marriages between these same peoples and Picts and Scots and Welsh were not equally so. Who knows what early history hides from us? Anything's possible. But it'd be quite the surprise, had history hidden such a thing as an Anglo-Saxon penchant for racial apartheid from us so completely until now.


From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 July 2006 02:33 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The BBC article says
quote:
We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised.

"This is exactly what we see today - a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language."[/quote]

They must know about the Norman(Norse men) conquest in 1066 and English language being displaced for a couple of centuries, surely.

And the region of Northumbria and Yorkshire Dales still bear a sizable number of locals with striking physical similarities - fair to Nordic blonde hair and blue eyes ie. Norwegian, Norwegian-Irish and Danish Vikings. They still eat Danish back bacon today in my family's town and where some of the orginal Norwegian place names are still used. Maltby and Stamford are more Anglo than Saxon.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Odin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12824

posted 20 July 2006 10:53 AM      Profile for Odin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And the region of Northumbria and Yorkshire Dales still bear a sizable number of locals with striking physical similarities - fair to Nordic blonde hair and blue eyes ie. Norwegian, Norwegian-Irish and Danish Vikings. They still eat Danish back bacon today in my family's town and where some of the orginal Norwegian place names are still used. Maltby and Stamford are more Anglo than Saxon.

Interesting point, my father was adopted, but his pre-adoption name was "Osbourne," which is a name that has it's origins in Old Norse. Although, he didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes, but red hair (changed to brown) and blue eyes, which sounds like a Norse trait, but my experience in the study of genetic expression amongst European cultural groups is rather limited.

Another interesting thing, is, while reading Thucydides, he mentions other groups native to the Greek peninsula that were not Greek and that the Greeks recognized as having been there before them. Of course, it's almost impossible to say who was anywhere "first" as humans are migratory animals IMHO.


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 July 2006 12:25 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, Odin. There are a fair number of red-headed people in Scotland and Ireland, more than any place else in the world. There are some people in Ireland with Spanish-looking features(celtic I imagine), and the South of England you see some with what I think must be certain Mediterranean looks to them.

My mother's hometown was mainly working class, a lot of coal miners, and the mine managers were Scottish. They lived separately on the hill above the working class neighborhoods. And there was a significant Irish contingent who arrived over time to work in the mines, too.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 20 July 2006 05:20 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
They must know about the Norman(Norse men) conquest in 1066 and English language being displaced for a couple of centuries, surely.

The other name for "Norse" is "North Germanic".

The scandinavaians, the anglo-saxons, the germans and (now extict) Goths are the four branches of the Germanic peoples.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 July 2006 09:44 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about the Hun's, were they Germanic, too ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 20 July 2006 09:54 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My, you have a long memory...
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 21 July 2006 08:38 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Yes, Odin. There are a fair number of red-headed people in Scotland and Ireland, more than any place else in the world. There are some people in Ireland with Spanish-looking features(celtic I imagine), and the South of England you see some with what I think must be certain Mediterranean looks to them.

I don't remember where I read this, but wasn't there a large group of Spainish that became part of the Irish population following the defeat of the Armada?


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749

posted 21 July 2006 09:47 AM      Profile for Yst     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:

I don't remember where I read this, but wasn't there a large group of Spainish that became part of the Irish population following the defeat of the Armada?


This myth has a strong tradition behind it, and it's been recounted widely, but it is almost universally dismissed under any closer inspection and serious contemplation. The very few Spanish, it is argued, who remained in Ireland long enough to bear children, were several orders of magnitude too small in number to constitute the basis for the Black Irish population of today and centuries past. I have one blood relative (an aunt) who very strongly displays Black Irish features and who is consequently regularly mistaken for everything from Jewish to Italian. See Wikipedia's article on the subject of the Black Irish.


From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 July 2006 09:57 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
s1mon - I've never heard of the theory of the Germans being of Central Asian origin.

The German language does belong to the Indo-European family, does it not?


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 July 2006 10:21 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:

The German language does belong to the Indo-European family, does it not?


I've read something similar. Any group of people who blow on bagpipes have some ties to the Celts somewhere along the line, including the Roman's, and I imagine Spaniards as well who played bagpipes going into battle. I've listened to people from Wales speaking in a sing-song manner and I thought I was listening to Pakistani's for a moment.

DNA shows Scots and Irish should look to Spain for their ancestry

Yes, I don't believe the Spanish sailors would have been allowed to come ashore in great numbers. I don't think the British sailors press-ganged into service against the Armada's faired well though. Their reward for loyal service to her majesty would be to live out their lives in extreme poverty and die prematurely after they were of no more use to the blue bloods.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Drinkmore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7371

posted 21 July 2006 10:49 AM      Profile for Drinkmore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

I've read something similar. Any group of people who blow on bagpipes have some ties to the Celts somewhere along the line, including the Roman's, and I imagine Spaniards as well who played bagpipes going into battle. I've listened to people from Wales speaking in a sing-song manner and I thought I was listening to Pakistani's for a moment.

DNA shows Scots and Irish should look to Spain for their ancestry


That there are a lot of Celts in Spain (Celta Vigo and Galician as an official language, etc) doesn't surprise me at all but that

Basques are genetically similar to Celts seems quite remarkable.


From: the oyster to the eagle, from the swine to the tiger | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749

posted 21 July 2006 11:49 AM      Profile for Yst     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

The other name for "Norse" is "North Germanic".

The scandinavaians, the anglo-saxons, the germans and (now extict) Goths are the four branches of the Germanic peoples.


Really, on the larger timescale, ethnographically and linguistically, Anglo-Saxons and Modern Germans are both simply West Germanic, and the three major classifications are West Germanic, East Germanic and North Germanic. It's difficult to make a connection between the modern groups and their medieval counterparts, however. No single classification will suit both modern Germanic ethnography and philology and its equivalents anywhere beyond 1,000 years ago. In the early medieval era, the logical division is one which identifies the continental Saxons, Frisians and Anglo-Saxons as belonging to a common Northwest Germanic group who share mutually intelligible if regionally distinct Germanic dialects and who all happen to have converted to Christianity by shortly after 800AD, where most of their other northern Germanic neighbours still have not. Now, on the other hand, Frisians and Continental Saxons are split between groupings in Scandinavia, Germany and elsewhere, removing any logical regional classification, and Low Saxon and Frisian share far more with Modern Standard German and Dutch respectively than with their common Northwest Germanic ancestor, English.


From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 21 July 2006 07:54 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
I think the Saxons arrived in England more out of necessity than as conquerors. They were trying to avoid being overrun by the Hun's. The Saxon's were considered barbaric by Roman's, but at least they cooked their meat. The Hun's weren't bothered with barbequeing.

Perhaps, but later on we discovered goulash, which makes up for a lot.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 21 July 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But the Romans were the most civilized of all! They ate freakin' peacocks!
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 July 2006 08:55 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[QB]

I've read something similar.


It was a rhetorical question.

There is a very interesting dictionary by Langenscheidt called Dictionary of Indo-European Languages that I looked at three decades ago when I was a student. (I love languages)

It arranges words in groups (I forgot the criteria for the arrangement) with all (or most) Indo-European languages side by side. It's very interesting to look at how the words changed.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 July 2006 12:34 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

Perhaps, but later on we discovered goulash, which makes up for a lot.


Never had a Hungarian goulash. I've eaten the typical Irish stew and Cajun dishes with roux though. Yum!

I wonder if there are any watered-down Norwegian's who dislike raw fish as much as I do. burp! Boom Boom mentioned having an extreme reaction to Bratwurst, which I can enjoy. For me, the foodie apocalypse would be pickled Herring or raw conger eel, or high game. I can't believe some of my relatives acshully ate that stuff. Blech!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 03 August 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, forget about RACIAL cateories and mixes (notice how easy it is to talk as if once everyone was purely something...surely ancient Europeans-to-be were just as "mixed" on the steppes as they've become on the peninsula?)...how about SPECIFIC categories. There is talk of it's being the Neanderthal element that explains the coloured hair...

Oh, and Germanic Huns? That was deliberate WWI propaganda, comparing the nun-raping Germans to "Huns" like Attila, which then stuck as an ethnic slur...a rare example of successfully manipulating popular speech, no?


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 03 August 2006 09:41 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boarsbreath:
Hey, forget about RACIAL cateories and mixes (notice how easy it is to talk as if once everyone was purely something...surely ancient Europeans-to-be were just as "mixed" on the steppes as they've become on the peninsula?)

Bravo!! I think it's funny when people claim to be 100% "Irish" or 100% "aboriginal" or 100% anything. There's no such thing. We are all various mixtures of Africans (out of which humans evolved).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 03 August 2006 09:50 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:

s1mon - I've never heard of the theory of the Germans being of Central Asian origin. Same goes for the British Celts.

Look up the indo-europeans. It's what people are talking about when they say "caucasian".


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 04 August 2006 03:59 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

Look up the indo-europeans. It's what people are talking about when they say "caucasian".


I think you're confusing linguistics with heredity.

'Indo-European' refers to a language group that encompasses almost every European language (exceptions are Basque, Finnish, Hungarian, and a few minor ones in Russia), Iranian/Persian, and various central and south Asian languages including Sanskrit and its descendants.

But linguistic relation doesn't imply close genetic relation at all. While the Celtic language is Indo-European, and all those languages came from Asia (ultimately, I think the proto-Indo-European language is believed to have been spoken by a people in eastern Turkey), it doesn't mean the Celts themselves came from there. The Germanic, Latin, Slavic, and Norse language families are also Indo-European.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca