Black Armbad versus White Blindfold: Genocide and Denial in Australian History

November 8, 2006 at 5:04 am 5 comments

This essay shall investigate the application of the term genocide to chapters in Australian history.  In concert with an exploration of possible genocidal movements in
Australia, this essay will also consider the national reception and understanding of possible genocide in an Australian context.  The matter of genocide is in any case, incredibly complex, whilst in Australian context, it becomes a necessarily political endeavour.  Thus, I have attempted to isolate significant instances of possible genocide, outline their historical circumstances and consider whether or not these episodes are indeed genocidal.  Following this, I will consider the prominent case of denial that operates within Australian society.  This say be performed in reference to both political and economic motivations, and questions of national identity. 

 

It is clear that the ‘invasion’ of
Australia by English colonialists resulted in the commencement of the imposition of a foreign system upon Indigenous Australians.
[1] The system included government policies such as dispossession of land, protection, assimilation, integration and the stealing of children which resulted in inequality and denial of basic human rights for Indigenous Australians.  Recently historians and other cultural commentators have begun to question whether or not this process of colonisation resulted in genocide, or at least the attempted genocide of the Indigenous peoples of
Australia.  Questions of genocide can be divided into two distinct historical phases: that of dispossession and dispersal, and later processes of assimilation, culminating in the ‘Stolen Generation.’ 

 

Commentators who advocate the stance of genocide in relation to the first phase of colonist-Indigenous contact primarily refer to Tasmania and
Queensland.
[2]  Initial Indigenous-colonist contact in
Tasmania can be characterised benign in comparison to latter action.  The Indigenous peoples were categorised as ‘savages’ who were in dire need of European guidance in civilisation and Christianity.
[3]  Thus, there were a number of attempts to civilise and educate the Indigenous population; however, they were in nearly every case unsuccessful.  The source of conflict between the two inhabiting populations is regulated to the control and use of land; meaning access to food and water.[4]  This is supported by the coinciding increase in deaths and a dramatic increase in colonial immigration, resulting in the European population growing by over 100% between 1815-1830, with pastoralists claiming large areas of land.[5]  Agriculturally processing Aboriginal hunting land necessarily resulted in severe food shortages for the Indigenous population, thus guerrilla warfare ensued.  The interaction between the two populations intensified in violence, culminating in the “Black War” between 1824 and 1830.  The official record of death is placed at a rate of 1:4 Europeans to Aboriginals killed.[6]  Eventually, in 1834 the remaining population of Tasmanian Aboriginals, est. 200, were placed on Flinder’s
Island.  Here, in what one academic terms, “the first concentration camp” in human history, the population rapidly declined, with only 80 of the original 200 remaining in 1847.
[7]

 

The issue of genocide in
Queensland is primarily related to the actions of the Queensland Native or Mounted Police.  The concept of ‘Native Police’ originated in the Southern states in the 1830s; involving the use of a number of non-local Indigenous men, led by a white officer.  In reaction to increasing violent interaction between the two occupying populations, whose causes are naturally similar to the Indigenous peoples of Tasmania, a
Queensland force was formed in 1848, led by Fred Walker.  A. D. Moses notes that under
Walker the Native Police, despite the use of a degree of physical violence, were relatively benign.
[8]  However, due to this lack of violence,
Walker was dismissed due to pressure by local pastoralists in 1855.
[9]  Consequently, the Native Police, along with local militias, became active in killing any discovered congregation of Indigenous peoples.  It is interesting to note that in official discourse, the activities of the Native Police were referred to as ‘dispersing’, however it was widely and publicly acknowledged that this was referring to physical extermination.[10]  Indeed, the murder of the Indigenous population was general public knowledge, and to some regarded almost as a sport.  This is eloquently displayed in the writing of the British High Commissioner in 1883, Arthur Gordon: “the habit of regarding the natives as vermin, to be cleared off the face of the earth, has given the average Queenslander a tone of brutality.”[11]  Whilst it is clear that large-scale slaughter was enacted upon the Aborigines, it is exceedingly difficult to estimate the totality of deaths.  However, a widely accepted estimate places Aboriginal deaths at 10, 000.[12] 

 

Perhaps the most controversial issue of genocide in
Australia is the matter of the ‘Stolen Generations’.  This term refers to the often forcible removal of part-Aboriginal children from their natural families.  The official dates normally allocated to the ‘Stolen Generation’ are 1900 to 1969, however as Colin Tatz relates, this process began in
Victoria in the 1840s.
[13]  The removal of children from their natural families was a process enacted within a wider ideological framework.  Rather than an isolated attempt at assimilation, the removals were an integral part of an attempt to ‘breed out’ the Aboriginal population.[14]  In that, part-Aboriginal children would be given the appropriate chance to assimilate into white culture, whilst eugenically based laws prevented and limited the procreative abilities of the ‘full-blood’ Indigenous population.[15]  Through this joint process, notes A. O. Neville to the 1937 Conference of the Protectors of Aborigines:  

Are we going to have a population of one million blacks in the Commonwealth, or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there were any Aborigines in
Australia?
[16]

It is evident that Neville is arguing for the latter outcome.  Furthermore, this statement by Neville is consequential in that it offers the ‘smoking gun’ required to meet a legal definition of genocide.  Despite the government enquiry, Bringing Them Home: The ‘Stolen Children’ Report, as with other instances of Aboriginal history, discovering the number of children who were removed from their natural family is controversial and inexact.  The report itself estimated that one in three part-Aboriginal children were removed, however other sources estimate one in ten. 

 

The application of the term genocide to Indigenous Australian history is not isolated to these three ‘instances’.  Despite the above scenarios being the most cited occurances of genocide, there exists a degree of debate over the application of the term, even amongst the so-called, ‘black armband’ historians.  When working within the legal definition of genocide as outlined by the UN Convention, it is increasingly difficult to apply genocide to the first phase of Indigenous-colonist contact.  The issue of Tasmanian Aboriginals demonstrates a case in point.  Although the Aboriginal population suffered near total decimation after the arrival of the colonists, it is not clear that this is genocide.  Firstly,  a large number of Aboriginal deaths may be regulated to introduced foreign disease and malnutrition.  It may be argued that in preventing the Indigenous population access to land, which was essential to their hunter-gatherer economy, that the coloniser’s enacted Article II section C. of the UN Convention on Genocide.  However, there is ample evidence that initially, the colonisers did attempt to ‘teach’ the Indigenous population farming techniques.  The colonist practice of restricting access to water and land was economically derived: dispossession, yes.  Genocide, no.  Furthermore, the murder of large numbers of Aboriginals during the Black War also does not allow for consideration under the UN definition of genocide.  Whilst the technicalities of the war were clearly unfair, and would ultimately result in Aboriginal slaughter, the Indigenous population did actively engage in the conflict.[17]  Concerning the relocation of Tasmanian Aboriginals to Flinder’s
Island, the so-called, “first concentration camp,” the matter of intent is highly ambiguous, and perhaps unlikely.  The figure largely responsible for this relocation, George Robertson, has been largely judged to have not intended to destroy the remaining indigenous population.
[18] 

 

The problematic nature of declaring the Tasmanian ‘episode’ is also reflected in the
Queensland case.  As with
Tasmania, both disease and malnutrition were a significant contributor to Aboriginal death.  Similarly, the Indigenous population clearly involved itself in the conflict.  Indeed,
Queensland represents the highest mortality rate for colonists.  However, within
Queensland, one can perceive a large degree of intent to destroy or eliminate within both historical records, and the method of destruction.  One such records has a pastoralist stating: “Desperate disease calls for strong remedies, and while we may regret the need for a war of extermination, there exists…a cruel..but necessary need for it.”
[19]  However, it would seem that the ‘genocidal’ intent and action of the colonists was driven by the notion that the Indigenous population posed an economic obstacle; once the Aboriginals no longer posed such a threat, this genocidal action abated.[20]  Despite this, it seems reasonable to assert that this ‘episode’ was indeed, genocidal: there is both intent and action to eliminate the Indigenous peoples. However, Justice Wilcox, in the case of Nulyarimma & Ors. Vs. Thompson states:

 

“there is an element of intent in all the killings.  A squatter who shot at the Aboriginals in reprisal for them spearing his cattle must be taken to have intended to kill individuals…it cannot be necessarily presumed that he intended to destroy the group, as such.[21] 

 

However, it can equally be argued that the massacre of Aboriginals in
Queensland was State supported, although at times only implicitly: thus, there is both intent to eliminate the group, and an, if multifaceted, agent. 

 

In contrast, it would largely seem that the matter of genocide in relation to the

‘Stolen Generation’ and the eugenic policies surrounding are indeed a case of Australian genocide.  These practices can be said to adequately meet the definition of Article II of the UN Genocide Convention  B., D., and E.  In that, these practices resulted in a catastrophic amount of “serious mental harm” to the group, acted to restrict its procreative capacity and involved the forcible transfer of children.[22]  Thus, this episode of Indigenous-colonist interaction can be stated to be a definite source of genocide in Australian history.

 

            Despite the surmounting evidence for genocidal chapters in Australian history, there exists an active intellectual, political and social body that denies the use of this term in Australian historiography.  Perhaps most prominent amongst the academic or intellectual white blindfolders, is Keith Windschuttle.  Windschuttle passionately decries the use of ‘genocide’ in relation to Australian history:

 

There was no genocide in
Australia. The idea that
Australia, as some writers have said, was the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany in its treatment of the Aborigines – I think that view is completely false. In fact, I think it’s grotesquely false. The original settlers, and the colonial authorities, wanted to civilise and modernise the Aborigines. The last thing they wanted to do was exterminate them. There was no policy about this. There was no policy at either the government level or amongst the settlers themselves, to wipe out the Aborigines, to drive them off the land.
[23]

 

Windschuttle’s first mentioned cause of concern is that in utilising the term, ‘genocide’
Australia is being compared to the machinations of Nazi Germany.
[24]  Indeed, there exists a wide resistance to the use of the term genocide in Australian history due to its connotations with the Holocaust.[25]  For historian Inga Clendinnan, the use of the term is utterly inappropriate: “I remain persuaded that the…invocation of genocide…was not only ill-judged, but a moral intellectual…and political disaster.”[26]  However, for Clendinnan, the issue is that in using this term in an Australian context, one is diminishing the experience of the victims of the Holocaust, whilst Windschuttle is concerning with a sullying of the Australian name. 

As stated above, there exists a great resistance to genocidal history in
Australia.  For political actors, such as John Howard, there is obvious political and financial incentive in denying a genocidal chapter to Australian history books.  Indeed, it would appear that this financial/political aspect has also filtered through to Australian society at large.  The ‘fear’ of reparation and land rights notes Andrew Gunstone, is voiced by both politicians and their voting public: “there is a fear of Indigenous rights…manifested in the notion that Indigenous rights would result in a separate nation…and would disadvantage whites.”
[27]  It is clear that finance and politics provide a degree of motivation for denial, however, it is possible to detect a strain of rhetoric in denialism that is located within the realms of national identity and remembrance. 

 

The existence of Aboriginal history, whether inadvertently, acts to question and challenge the legacy of non-Indigenous past in
Australia.  John Howard has vocalised his unease with the challenging question that the consideration of Indigenous history in general, and the matter of genocide in particular poses to the non-Indigenous population who wish to take pride in their national past in which he refutes the use of “silly terms” such as genocide, and is appalled at the historians attempt to induce shame upon current Australian’s for past wrongs.
[28]

 

Various dissenter’s on the genocidal debate seem over achingly concerned that Australian genocide is at odds with the Australian national character that is comprised of egalitarianism, mateship and morality.[29]  As Colin Tatz notes, for many Australian’s it is impossible to conceive that our (non-Indigenous) national ancestor’s committed genocide as this is in opposition to our (non-Indigenous) national ‘pioneering legend’ of mateship and morality.[30]  Indeed, this allergy to Indigenous history in general on the basis of a national identity can be seen in Wayne Goss’s demand that the term, ‘invasion’ be removed from
Queensland school textbooks.  The importance of morality to national identity is also displayed in such arguments that deny genocide on the basis, that if it were committed, ‘we’ would have prosecuted it.
[31]  Denialist’s display the classic behaviour of individual’s who attempt to overcome cognitive dissonance by rejecting the factor that produces this troublesome position:  the denialist finds it impossible to reconcile the positive aspects of Australian history with its accompanying negative facets. Thus, the denialist rejects any historical evidence that contradicts their absolutionist, positive historical identity. 

 

            Although at times ambiguous, it can be reasonably stated that
Australia history does entail genocidal moments.  The actions and policies of the Queensland Native Police, in addition to local militias, can be stated to be genocidal acts that involve State sanction.  Furthermore the ‘Stolen Generation’ and the eugenics program that surrounded it are also another example in which the relations between Indigenous and colonist became genocidal in nature.  Yet, in spite of the dedicated research of the so-called ‘black armband’ historians and the Human Rights Commission, that genocide has been committed against the Indigenous peoples of
Australia is denied.  The reasons for this denial are multifaceted, however it is clear that they are motivated by both financial and political issues, in addition to an attempt to maintain an obscure ‘pioneering’ legend.  The issue of genocide in
Australia will likely be an ongoing debate, as both the black armbanders and white blinfolders are unlikely to disappear into the bush.  It is hoped that this endeavour may continue to provide insight into Australian past and future. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attwood, B. 2001. “The Stolen Generations and Genocide: Robert Manne’s In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right” Aboriginal History. vol. 25.  pp. 163-173.

 

Brautlinger, P. 2004. “Black Armband Versus White Blindfold: History in
Australia” Victorian Studies. Summer 2004. pp. 655-675.

 

Breen, S. 2003. “Fabrication, Genocide and Denial” History
Australia.
vol. 1 no 1. pp. 73-85.

 

Brehrendt, L. 2001. “Genocide: The Distance Between Law and Life” Aboriginal History. vol. 25. pp. 131-147

 

Corthoys, A. & Docker, J. 2001. “Introduction. Genocide: Definitions, Questions, Settler-Colonies” Aboriginal History. vol. 25. pp. 1-15.   

 

Fabricating Aboriginal History http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/includes/fetchcontent.asp?purl=/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_1286.asp  accessed on 22/10/06 at 10:00 am.   

 

Gigiotti, S. 2003. “Unspeakable Pasts as Limit Events: The Holocaust, Genocide and the Stolen Generations” Journal of Politics and History. vol. 49 no. 2. pp. 164-181.

Gunstone, A. 2004. “Reconciliation, Nationalism and The History Wars” Paper for the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference.

University of
Adelaide. 29/9/04-1/10/04.

 

 

History News Network. http://hnn.us/comments/7988.html  accessed on 20/10/06 at 1: 20pm. 

 

 

Larbalestier, J. 2004. “White over Black: Discourses of Whiteness in Australian Culture” Borderlands E-Journal. vol. 3 no. 2. http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol3no2_2004/larbalestier_white.htm   accessed on 20/10/06 at 2:00 pm.   

 

Minogue, K. 1998. “Aborigines and Australian Apologetics” Quadrant. September 1998. pp. 11-21.

 

Markovich, D. 2003. “Genocide, A Crime of Which No Anglo-Saxon Nation Could Be Guilty”

Murdoch
University
Electronic Journal of Law. vol. 10 no.3.
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n3/markovich103.html  accessed on 22/10/06 at 3:00 pm. 

 

Markus, A. 2001. “Genocide in
Australia” Aboriginal History. vol. 25. pp. 57-70.

 

Moses, A.D. 2001. “Coming to Terms With Genocidal Pasts in Comparative Perspective: Germany and
Australia” Aboriginal History. vol. 25 pp. 91-115. 

 

Moses, A. D. 2002. “An Antipodean Genocide? The Origins of the Genocidal Moment in the Colonisation of
Australia” Journal of Genocidal Research. vol. 2 no. 1. pp. 89-106.

 

Palmer, A. 1998. “Colonial and Modern Genocide: Explanations and Categories” Ethnic and Racial Studies. vol. 21. no. 1 pp. 89-115. 

 

Tartz, C. 2001. “Confronting Australian Genocide” Aboriginal History. vol. 25. pp. 16-36.

 

 

 

 


[1] I have placed ‘invasion’ in such grammatical marks in order to recognise that the use of this term is highly contested in Australian society.  However, it would seem that invasion is indeed the correct term for the instance of English arrival upon Australian shores. 

[2] Naturally, other states are also discussed, however it would seem that attention is primarily placed upon these two states.  The focus on
Tasmania can be possibly regulated to the attention it is given by Keith Windschuttle in The Fabrication of Aboriginal History.  

[3] In this way, European superiority was defined within Ethnocentricism: on the notion of superiority by culture and civilisation, rather than race. 

[4] Moses, A. D. 2002. “An Antipodean Genocide? The Origins of the Genocidal Moment in the Colonisation of
Australia” Journal of Genocidal Research. vol. 2 no. 1. pp. 89-106. p. 96. 

[5] Moses. “An Antipodean” p. 91

[6] Ibid. 

[7] Brautlinger, P. 2004. “Black Armband Versus White Blindfold: History in
Australia” Victorian Studies. Summer 2004. pp. 655-675. Quoting Lloyd Robson. p. 660.  Moses. “An Antipodean” p. 99. 

[8] Note the emphasis upon relatively.  It is difficult to present an argument concerning the Aboriginal Australians without using language that is offensive or racist, or at the very least may come to resemble right-wing rhetoric.  However, the emphasis here is upon genocidal acts, and thus those activities which operate outside this sphere are considered to be less damaging in nature. 

[9] Moses. “An Antipodean” p. 100. 

[10] Moses. “An Antipodean” p. 100; Brautlinger. “Black Armband” p. 663;

[11] Tartz, C. 2001. “Confronting Australian Genocide” Aboriginal History. vol. 25. pp. 16-36. p. 25.

[12] Moses. “an Antipodean” p. 100. Brautlinger. “Black Armband” p. 663; Tartz, C. “Confronting Australian” p. 25.

[13] Tatz. “Confronting” p. 24. 

[14] Markus, A. 2001. “Genocide in
Australia” Aboriginal History. vol. 25. pp. 57-70. p. 65. 

[15] See Tatz. “Confronting” especially pp. 24-25. 

[16] History News Network. http://hnn.us/comments/7988.html  accessed on 20/10/06 at 1: 20pm. 

[17] Brautlinger. “Black Armband” p. 666. 

[18] Moses. “An Antipodean” p. 99.  However, Robertson in viewed negatively historically.  This stance is taken by Henry Reynolds, who argues that despite the outcome, the government did not intend to exterminate the Tasmanian Aborigines.  Lyndall Ryan however, argues that there is a clear case of intent within the actions and policies of the Tasmanian Europeans.  See Fabricating Aboriginal History.http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/includes/fetchcontent.asp?purl=/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_1286.asp  accessed on 22/10/06 at 10:00 am. 

[19] Moses. “An Antipodean” p. 100. 

[20] See Moses. “An Antipodean” pp. 99-101.  Also see: Palmer, A. 1998. “Colonial and Modern Genocide: Explanations and Categories” Ethnic and Racial Studies. vol. 21. no. 1 pp. 89-115. 

[21] Brehrendt, L. 2001. “Genocide: The Distance Between Law and Life” Aboriginal History. vol. 25. pp. 131-147. p. 140. 

[22] For an excellent discussion of how these practices meet the legal requirements of the UN definition see: Markovich, D. 2003. “Genocide, A Crime of Which No Anglo-Saxon Nation Could Be Guilty”

Murdoch
University
Electronic Journal of Law. vol. 10 no.3.
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n3/markovich103.html  accessed on 22/10/06 at 3:00 pm.  For the purpose of this essay, I have simplified the argument.  However, it must be noted that it may be the case that not all of the children were forcibly removed.  Yet, it is clear that many were forcibly removed, resulting in alarmingly detrimental affects to Indigenous peoples involved.  For the problematic nature of ‘forcible removal’ see:  Attwood, B. 2001. “The Stolen Generations and Genocide: Robert Manne’s In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right” Aboriginal History. vol. 25.  pp. 163-173. p. 167

[23] Fabrication.

[24] Interestingly, and quite possibly not coincidental, Ann Corthoys and John Docker in their introduction to the Aboriginal History issue on genocide provide a detailed analysis of ways in which Australia’s policy and interaction with the Indigenous peoples does in fact merit comparison with Nazi Germany.  See Corthoys, A. & Docker, J. 2001. “Introduction. Genocide: Definitions, Questions, Settler-Colonies” Aboriginal History. vol. 25. pp. 1-15. 

[25] Breen, S. 2003. “Fabrication, Genocide and Denial” History
Australia.
vol. 1 no 1. pp. 73-85. p. 77.  For a discussion that echoes Windschuttle, see: Minogue, K. 1998. “Aborigines and Australian Apologetics” Quadrant. September 1998. pp. 11-21. p. 14. 

[26] Quoted in Gigiotti, S. 2003. “Unspeakable Pasts as Limit Events: The Holocaust, Genocide and the Stolen Generations” Journal of Politics and History. vol. 49 no. 2. pp. 164-181. p. 165.  Also quoted in Larbalestier, J. 2004. “White over Black: Discourses of Whiteness in Australian Culture” Borderlands E-Journal. vol. 3 no. 2. http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol3no2_2004/larbalestier_white.htm   accessed on 20/10/06 at 2:00 pm. 

[27] Gunstone, A. 2004. “Reconciliation, Nationalism and The History Wars” Paper for the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference.

University of
Adelaide. 29/9/04-1/10/04.
p. 6. 

[28] Bautlinger. “Black Armband” pp. 658-660. 

[29] Gunstone. “Reconciliation” p. 6; Moses, A.D. 2001. “Coming to Terms With Genocidal Pasts in Comparative Perspective: Germany and
Australia” Aboriginal History. vol. 25 pp. 91-115. 

[30] Tatz. “Confronting:” p. 17.  Larbalestier. “White over Black” p. 26.  

[31] Tatz. “Confronting” p. 30. 

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Aboriginal History, Denial, Genocide, Howard, Indigenous History, John, Keith, Politics and History, Queensland Mounted Police, Queensland Native Police, Stolen Generations, Tasmanian Aborigines, Windschuttle.

An Authentication Message

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. John Zhao  |  September 11, 2008 at 9:47 am

    I have placed ‘invasion’ in such grammatical marks in order to recognise that the use of this term is highly contested in Australian society. However, it would seem that invasion is indeed the correct term for the instance of English arrival upon Australian shores.

    Invasion would only be the correct term if the local population reacted to the presence in a manner that would indicate that the foreign population was breaking it’s laws. As you must be aware, there was no warfare between colonists and Aborigines in the Sydney region. Instead, there was friendship.

    Reply
    • 2. Sam  |  January 5, 2012 at 2:36 am

      if you consider they declined to make a treaty, they didnt decare war and based their claim on terra nullius which has been proven wrong then I would consider it invasion, Aboriginals were the same race but had hundreds and hundreds of different nations with different belief systems and cultural practices, one of the Aboriginal nations I belong to was almost totally destroyed, our first contacts with europeans was dominated by warfare, there was no violence in sydney because the Aboriginals thought they were women with their white wigs, they refused to negotiate with them until they proved they were men. understandable if men are wearing wigs and makeup. If you look at international law, the only true law over Australia you would see genocide is the correct term, under international law Australia was settled illegally and still belongs to Aboriginals, but the murdoch dominated press wont tell the Australian public the truth as ignorance is bliss, there was roughly 10 years grace period until Aboriginals worked out they were here to steal the land not share and live with us and thats againts our laws, if we didnt have laws and land ownership systems then terra nullius would still stand. All the evidence is there, Australia are wasting time debating if genocide happened, lets start to deal with it, its a shame and a drain on Australia to continue this debate, those that keep it going are giving us the racist title, those still trying to cover up the past are the most un Australian people

      Reply
  • 3. Michael Tim  |  February 28, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    I love your site!

    _____________________
    Experiencing a slow PC recently? Fix it now!

    Reply
  • 5. morsehenry99339  |  April 8, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    Amazing! Its truly amazing article, I have got muchnclear idea on the topic of from this paragraph. Click https://twitter.com/moooker1

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Recent Posts

November 2006
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

%d bloggers like this: