Posted: Wed 21 Mar 2007 20:09 Post subject: Re: Why seek oppression?
Salsassin wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
I guess that I have led a sheltered life. For some reason, I thought that the Caribbean Hispanic dispensation from being seen as Black was natiowide.
Naw, there are many Dominicans that identify as Black.
I meant the dispensation from being seen as Black by Anglos against their wishes. No one gets the dispensation to be seen as non-Black if they openly self-identify as Black. Most White Americans are reasonably polite, after all.
Posted: Thu 22 Mar 2007 14:29 Post subject: Re: Why seek oppression?
fwsweet wrote:
G-Man wrote:
My own take on the "Hispanic Escape Hatch" is it is regional. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in the Northeast U.S. are not seen as racially black by most people, unless they are extremely African-looking. ... Outside of the U.S. areas where they predominate, Latinos who look "black" (read: look like they have some African ancestry at least) will be seen as such, even by other Hispanic Americans of non-Caribbean ancestry.
That is very interesting, especially since it is corroborated by:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I knew a Dominican woman in Houston...she said that Mexicans talk crap about black people ... they looked confused and scared and apologized and said they were talking about American blacks only.
I guess that I have led a sheltered life. For some reason, I thought that the Caribbean Hispanic dispensation from being seen as Black was natiowide.
In Earl Shorris' book, "Latinos", there is a section where he discusses race and Latinos. He interviews a Puerto Rican couple living in New York-mestizo or Euro-looking husband, dark-skinned more African-looking wife-who used to live in Texas. Neither considered themselves white or black, and both, from what I can remember, were “sensitive” about the wife’s obvious African ancestry.
Both claimed that Mexicans and Chicanos simply saw the wife as black (racially) and were surprised when they were “called out” by her in “their language” (Spanish) after making racist comments in the woman’s presence about black people (African Americans).
The couple Shorris interviewed was upset for two reasons: the Mexicans and Chicanos didn’t see the wife as a fellow Latino because of her blackness (such as it was), even after realizing she spoke Spanish fluently, and they saw her as a racially black person. Neither she nor her husband saw her as black racially.
Where I currently live, Northern Virginia, most Latinos are mestizo or Ameridian people from Central America, Mexico or South America. Hispanics who have visible African ancestry may have their Latinoness challenged. For example, I know of one individual of Cuban background who is as black as any African. When he was purchasing a home in Washington DC his real estate agent who was Latino too, but mestizo to European-looking, wanted to know where HE got a Spanish last name.
An acquaintance of mine who is a black Puerto Rican (that’s how he describes himself), and who looks like any dark-brown African American, often has his claims to being Puerto Rican challenged because of his appearance, even by other Puerto Ricans. Additionally, he is often accused by African Americans of “running away” from his blackness because he asserts a Latino and Puerto Rican identity along with his black racial identity. It annoys him to no end, especially when he informs both parties that being black and Latino are not mutually exclusive things and his own Puerto Rican culture is more African than African American culture.
A good friend of mine who is Puerto Rican and completely European-looking often has her claims to Latinoness challenged as well. But Latinos where I live appear to be more willing to accept her claim as opposed to a Latino's who looks like, say, Eddy Murphy.
Probably the most succinct historiographic survey of Puerto Rican attitudes towards the U.S. "race" notion is Clara E. Rodriguez, “Challenging Racial Hegemony: Puerto Ricans in the United States,” in Race, ed. Steven Gregory and Roger Sanjek (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University, 1994), 131-45. The book is a collection of essays on recent studies of racialism in different groups, and Clara Rodriguez's chapter addresses Puerto Ricans in particular.
In short, there seem to be different reasons for Puerto Rican rejection of the "black" census label, depending on age and educational level.
Older Puerto Ricans are probably sincere. They tend to be extremely colorist and vehemently deny that there is any "black blood" in their own families (although they are not sure about their neighbors'). My 94-year-old mother, for example, insists that her ancestors were all "racially pure" Spaniards whose families were never tainted by the slightest trace of "Moorish blood." She checks off "white" because she honestly believes that she is "white" in the "limpieza de sangre" sense common in the early 20th century. When asked about their obvious African phenotype features, older Puerto Ricans (like older Cubans and Dominicans) rationalize that such features are due to their "Indian blood." (Yes, even while simultaneously insisting that they are pure White; Puerto Ricans compartmentalize as nimbly as anyone else.)
Educated Puerto Ricans claim to check off whatever seems to be in their best interest. They (correctly) point out that it is economically harmful to be labeled "black" in the United States.
Puerto Ricans of the lower socioeconomic class express virulent contempt for African Americans. They claim to reject the "black" category because they do not want to be confused with violent criminals, men who abandon their families, and women who fail to raise their children.
Virtually none, as far as can be determined, "are confused about what the US census folks mean," as you suggest. They know very well what "black" means. It is the label of a group that they want no part of, either because: they deny non-White ancestry, because they think anyone would be foolish to seek oppression, or because they despise black crime and immorality.
Regarding the "check more than one box" issue, I recommend Nicholas A. Jones and Amy Symens Smith, The Two or More Races Population: 2000, (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Few Americans check off more than one box. Apparently, Blacks seem to think that doing so will dilute their political power, Whites are unaware of their SSA ancestry, and Hispanics avoid "black" for the reasons given but many check "white" and "indian."
I do not believe that the idea that people are confused or that they do not grasp the significance of the U.S. color line is a tenable hypothesis.
Comments noted. Question though. Do Puerto Rican IN PUERTO RICO self identify based on their notions of what an African American is. Or is it that its better not to be black even in PR and that more fluid notions of race there allows them to get away with it.
Also given that the whole theory of what being Puerto Rican (in PR) is (and I have heard this at virtually every single PR govt sponsored event) is being part Spanish, part Taino and part African, this would seem to lead to people seeing themselves as mixed, not white. If the US census had a box marked "mixed" which is diferent from "other", maybe more people would have checked taht box.
Posted: Fri 23 Mar 2007 22:22 Post subject: Re: Why seek oppression?
[quote="fwsweet"]
G-Man wrote:
I guess that I have led a sheltered life. For some reason, I thought that the Caribbean Hispanic dispensation from being seen as Black was natiowide.
No because outside of the NY area most people see Latins as Mestizos or as swarthy colored whites. Some Domionican kids who went to college on a base ball scholarship down South encountere serious stress (as reported on a TV news cast) because they claiemd they were "Dominican", not "black". The response was so what. These kids were more SSA in appearance than at least 50 % of the AfricanAmericans. In NYC people might smirk behind their backs, but accept that they dont consider themselves to be black.
Comments noted. Question though. Do Puerto Rican IN PUERTO RICO self identify based on their notions of what an African American is. Or is it that its better not to be black even in PR and that more fluid notions of race there allows them to get away with it.
There are plenty of Black identified Puerto Ricans. But they don't use one droppism in their identifications.
Puerto Rican song:
Quote:
Las caras lindas de mi gente negra son un desfile de velas en flor
que cuando pasa frente a mi se alegra
de su negrura, todo el corazón
Las caras lindas de mi raza prieta
tienen de llanto, de pena y dolor
son las verdades, que la vida reta
pero que llevan dentro mucho amor
Somos la melaza que ríe
la melaza que llora
somos la melaza que ama
y en cada beso, que conmovedora
Por eso vivo orgulloso de su colorido
somos de tono amable, de clara poesia
tienen su ritmo, tienen melodía
las caras lindas de mi gente negra
Las caras lindas, las caras lindas
Que lindas pero..pero que lindas son
las caras lindas de mi gente negra
Tienen, tienen, tienen, tienen de llanto
mucha melodía, te digo eh! tienen belleza
y también tienen poesía
Las caras lindas, las caras lindas
las caras lindas de mi gente negra
Caritas lindas de gente negra,
que la calma tengo un montón
las caras lindas de mi gente negra, son un vacilón
Las caras lindas, las caras lindas
las caras lindas de mi gente negra
Como te digo, la melaza que ríe, jajajajaja
que canta y que llora y en cada beso
bien conmovedora y cautivadora
Las caras lindas, las caras lindas
las caras lindas de mi gente negra
te digo que en PortoBello Panamá
yo vi la cara más bella y pura
y es por eso que mi corazón,
se alegra de su negrura. !Esa si que es linda!
Las caras lindas, las caras lindas
las caras lindas de mi gente negra
Que lin, que lin, que lindas son
(hablado) Negrura de la pura
Que lin, que lin, que lindas son
alalale, alale, alale...
Las caras lindas, las caras lindas
las caras lindas de mi gente negra
Oyeme, pero que bonitas son, lindas son,
chulas son, bonitas son, lindas que son
lindas como tú veras, así son
Lindas como aquellas que dije son un vacilón
Un riquito vacilón, con tu corazón, rico de melón
Que lindas, que lindas, que lindas, que lindas
que chulas que son, bonitas que son, bien bonitas
chulitas que son, que lindas son, caritas lindas,
lindas lindas son.¡llévame!
Lindas que son, lindas son
pero que lindas son, pero que lindas son,
Lindas que son, lindas son
Muchas caras lindas, pero que lin,
que lin, que lindas son
Pa' todas las caras lindas de Latinoamerica!
Las caras lindas de mi gente negra, son un montón
Las caras lindas, las caras lindas
las caras lindas de mi gente negra
Desfile de negrura, de la pura que viene de allá
Las caras lindas de mi gente negra son un vacilón
Las caras lindas, las caras lindas
las caras lindas de mi gente negra
Melaza que ríe, melaza que ríe, jajajaja
que canta y que llora, y en cada beso bien conmovedora
pero que linda
Quote:
Also given that the whole theory of what being Puerto Rican (in PR) is (and I have heard this at virtually every single PR govt sponsored event) is being part Spanish, part Taino and part African, this would seem to lead to people seeing themselves as mixed, not white. If the US census had a box marked "mixed" which is diferent from "other", maybe more people would have checked taht box.
Very true. Most check white only because the largest ancestry is White, not because they only see their ancestry as White. When pushed to chose they go by predominance.
Posted: Mon 26 Mar 2007 14:11 Post subject: Re: Why seek oppression?
caribj wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
I guess that I have led a sheltered life. For some reason, I thought that the Caribbean Hispanic dispensation from being seen as Black was natiowide.
No because outside of the NY area most people see Latins as Mestizos or as swarthy colored whites. Some Domionican kids who went to college on a base ball scholarship down South encountere serious stress (as reported on a TV news cast) because they claiemd they were "Dominican", not "black". The response was so what. These kids were more SSA in appearance than at least 50 % of the AfricanAmericans. In NYC people might smirk behind their backs, but accept that they dont consider themselves to be black.
I would add that, in my experience, many whites in NYC, as well as blacks, exclude Caribbean Latinos from the standards of blackness they apply to everyone else. I saw this on display numerous times in my Bronx high school and in my neighborhood.
The number of whites who would NEVER date anyone black (defined as anyone with any known African ancestry) but were actually dating (and in some cases eventually marrying) Puerto Ricans or Dominicans with visible African ancestry was too high to count in my high school.
By the same token, some black guys dated completely European-looking Puerto Ricans or other Hispanics and that was ok because they were "Spanish" and not white.
Outiside of the areas where they predominate, though, Caribbean Latinos run the risk of being seen as racially black if they look like they have "a drop" even by other Latinos. The idea that Rosario Dawson or Rosy Perez look Latino would be odd to many blacks, whites or Chicanos in Texas and California.
Posted: Fri 30 Mar 2007 05:46 Post subject: Choosing oppression?
Quote:
Quote:
Frank:
Virtually none, as far as can be determined, "are confused about what the US census folks mean," as you suggest. They know very well what "black" means. It is the label of a group that they want no part of, either because: they deny non-White ancestry, because they think anyone would be foolish to seek oppression, or because they despise black crime and immorality.
Ah, now the question should be: How do we explain those U.S. Anglos and Creoles who go out of their way to identify as "black" when they could very easily identify as "white" (Think Gregory Howard Williams, Judy Scales Trent, Adrian Piper, etc.)? Are they crazy in contrast to sane Latinos?
Quote:
I have some ideas, but I would like to hear others. Why was Susie Guillory Phipps denounced by "black" and and some "white liberal" intellectuals for rejecting a black label or being "sick" at the thought of being labeled "black" when the same attitude in a Latino or Arab-American would pass without comment?
Quote:
Salsassin
Very simple. Because those same Latinos were never a part of the Afro-American or "Black" experience, nor were their families. There is no point of reference to dentify with. GHHoward was raised in that community. Others may have been so as well, or found out that recent family was opressed under that label and identify with that struggle. Something Latinos just don't have as a historical experience.
That doesn't answer the question. The "black blood" myth is not rooted in a shared culture or experience. It was created to be a stigma of inferiority and a warning to other whites of what can happen if you get too close to the despised Negroes. Latinos in the U.S. know that. It is not simply a matter of not being able to relate to slavery, the Old South, etc.
A Latino understands New World slavery and racial mixture better than a Nigerian. Why are Nigerian immigrants considered "African American" as soon as they come here? Why are British, German or other European mulattoes called "African Americans" as soon as they come here?
Gregory Howard Williams was raised as a white boy during his first decade of life. His father dumped Greg and his older brother in the Muncie black community and told them they were "colored" and then "niggers." I call that child abuse, even though Williams now glorifies it as a return to a "race" and "ethnicity" determined by "blood." Remember that the title of his book says he was a "white boy" who "discovered he was black." Williams is claiming he was really "black" even when he thought he was a pure white and living as one.
Posted: Fri 30 Mar 2007 13:07 Post subject: Re: Choosing oppression?
Powell wrote:
That doesn't answer the question. The "black blood" myth is not rooted in a shared culture or experience. It was created to be a stigma of inferiority and a warning to other whites of what can happen if you get too close to the despised Negroes.
So you claim. But Black ethnicity is not just about "Black Blood" but shared experience.
Quote:
Latinos in the U.S. know that. It is not simply a matter of not being able to relate to slavery, the Old South, etc.
A Latino understands New World slavery and racial mixture better than a Nigerian. Why are Nigerian immigrants considered "African American" as soon as they come here? Why are British, German or other European mulattoes called "African Americans" as soon as they come here?
Hardly. Latinos have plenty in the ranks that identify as Negros. But they don't identify with the Afro-American culture.
Quote:
Gregory Howard Williams was raised as a white boy during his first decade of life. His father dumped Greg and his older brother in the Muncie black community and told them they were "colored" and then "niggers." I call that child abuse, even though Williams now glorifies it as a return to a "race" and "ethnicity" determined by "blood." Remember that the title of his book says he was a "white boy" who "discovered he was black." Williams is claiming he was really "black" even when he thought he was a pure white and living as one.
http://www.interracialvoice.com/powell4.html
Hogwash. He has stated in his book that he was mixed, but in the culture of the time he was just another "nigger"in that oppressive society once his parentage was obvious. That was not child abuse. That was exposure to a side of a family he didn't know. I am sure to you, realizing African ancestry is there must have been abuse, but Williams does not manifest such elements.
Hogwash. He has stated in his book that he was mixed, but in the culture of the time he was just another "nigger"in that oppressive society once his parentage was obvious. That was not child abuse. That was exposure to a side of a family he didn't know. I am sure to you, realizing African ancestry is there must have been abuse, but Williams does not manifest such elements.
I'm sure you want to believe that.
What Tony Williams did to his kids Greg and Mike was child abuse. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to try and make "niggers" out of his kids. He did that himself. He could easily have given his sons a decent life. Of course, if dumping two kids (white or not) into a black ghetto with an alcoholic excuse for a dad and grandmother is your definition of a typical black family reunion, any debate is useless.
Generally throughout this hemisphere blackness or African looks are stigmatized.
And should we accept this as a fact of life? I note that some folks say this but never seem to offer any suggestions as to how it can be remedied in Latin America if they find the ODR used in the USA and the two tier system (division between two distinct groups one black and one mixed with black) to be offensive to their sensibilities.
And should we accept this as a fact of life? I note that some folks say this but never seem to offer any suggestions as to how it can be remedied in Latin America if they find the ODR used in the USA and the two tier system (division between two distinct groups one black and one mixed with black) to be offensive to their sensibilities.
There were only two ground rules for this thread. The opening message clearly stated: "The two most important posting rules for this thread (and they will be enforced) are: (1) No moralizing or value judgments, please. (2) We are seeking facts (findings). Opinions (conclusions) are acceptable, but they must be based upon facts (findings) previously presented." Caribj has deliberately violated the first rule, and he has done this while under a first warning in another thread.
Accordingly, Caribj's posting privilege is hereby suspended until midnight, April 26, 2007. This suspension is for two weeks because it is the second suspension within a month. Caribj's next suspension will be for one month.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 14 Apr 2007 14:35 Post subject: Re: Why seek oppression?
G-Man wrote:
...
Outiside of the areas where they predominate, though, Caribbean Latinos run the risk of being seen as racially black if they look like they have "a drop" even by other Latinos. The idea that Rosario Dawson or Rosy Perez look Latino would be odd to many blacks, whites or Chicanos in Texas and California.
Good point!
Latinos consider themselves a people with a common history together. Latinos, in general, don't consider themselves a single race, but more like a mozaic. And racism between Latino subgroups does exist.
One Latino can suffer racial and ethnic discrimination in another Latino country. That's something we see in daily life.
It does not only affect Black people, but others as well. A Japanese Brazilian could be discriminated in Colombia, and Bolivians of heavy Amerindian look are discriminated in Argentina. Central Americans are a targetted in Mexico, Guatemalans particularly because they are short, and Dominicans suffer lot of discrimination in the hemisphere's mainland.
For example, It is curious that same Mexicans complained because Jennifer Lopez represented a Mexican singer in a movie some time ago.
Generally throughout this hemisphere blackness or African looks are stigmatized.
And should we accept this as a fact of life? I note that some folks say this but never seem to offer any suggestions as to how it can be remedied in Latin America if they find the ODR used in the USA and the two tier system (division between two distinct groups one black and one mixed with black) to be offensive to their sensibilities.
And who are these people?
Notice I wrote that throughout this hemisphere blackness or African looks are stigmatized. This includes the U.S.A and this stigma is indifferent to the existence of the ODR, which I might add does not exist in the non-Hispanic Caribbean. Moreover, the fact that this exists throughout this hemisphere means that it should be remedied even in the U.S.
Also, acknowledging this fact is not the same thing as accepting it as a fact of life or claiming it is an acceptable thing.
Furthermore, the existence of an ODR in the U.S. hasn’t led to African looks or blackness not being stigmatized. This has definitely has been my experience growing up in the U.S. You’d be surprised the things I’ve heard from African Americans about light skin, good hair, etc.; all from people who see themselves as nothing but black.
Latinos and Caribbeans are generally less restrained or self-conscious in expressing their dislike of African features and dark skin compared to African Americans. Much of what I heard from African Americans in the 70s and even the 80s and even early 90s (mostly African American men really) about their preference for light skin and “good hair” would be considered unacceptable if expressed openly today. However, the sentiments are still present.
Last edited by G-Man on Tue 15 May 2007 16:24; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 10 May 2007 {Posts: 138 } Location: Oklahoma City
Posted: Mon 14 May 2007 23:01 Post subject:
odocoileus wrote:
White identified Americans seem to take the same position. They deny their African ancestry, but readily admit to Native American ancestry.
Yep. I live in Oklahoma, where 'everyone' is Native American (vast majority identify that way, too, although to see them on the street you'd say they were white). Just as ugly a past (read about the Land Run in Oklahoma), but people cheerfully and proudly say it.
Joined: 10 May 2007 {Posts: 138 } Location: Oklahoma City
Posted: Mon 14 May 2007 23:12 Post subject: Re: What is there to gain?
High School Teacher wrote:
To answer your question more directly, no, I'm not suggesting blackamericans fear losing their right to vote. They're afraid of losing their identity. And identity is politics.
That partly explains the hostility towards the "multiracial" movement and the insistence on the ODR. If there is not ODR, then all those people who would have been in the Black camp might feel free to identify some other way. Maybe even *gasp* white!
Hogwash. He has stated in his book that he was mixed, but in the culture of the time he was just another "nigger"in that oppressive society once his parentage was obvious. That was not child abuse. That was exposure to a side of a family he didn't know. I am sure to you, realizing African ancestry is there must have been abuse, but Williams does not manifest such elements.
I'm sure you want to believe that.
What Tony Williams did to his kids Greg and Mike was child abuse. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to try and make "niggers" out of his kids. He did that himself. He could easily have given his sons a decent life. Of course, if dumping two kids (white or not) into a black ghetto with an alcoholic excuse for a dad and grandmother is your definition of a typical black family reunion, any debate is useless.
I'm sure you would see it that way. But let me ask you this, if the family had been White, would it have been child abuse if the man was broke to drop his children off with his mother even if she was White Trash? Is it child abuse to drop a child off with poor uneducated family members? What family members should he have dropped them off with?
Hogwash. He has stated in his book that he was mixed, but in the culture of the time he was just another "nigger"in that oppressive society once his parentage was obvious. That was not child abuse. That was exposure to a side of a family he didn't know. I am sure to you, realizing African ancestry is there must have been abuse, but Williams does not manifest such elements.
I'm sure you want to believe that.
What Tony Williams did to his kids Greg and Mike was child abuse. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to try and make "niggers" out of his kids. He did that himself. He could easily have given his sons a decent life. Of course, if dumping two kids (white or not) into a black ghetto with an alcoholic excuse for a dad and grandmother is your definition of a typical black family reunion, any debate is useless.
I'm sure you would see it that way. But let me ask you this, if the family had been White, would it have been child abuse if the man was broke to drop his children off with his mother even if she was White Trash? Is it child abuse to drop a child off with poor uneducated family members? What family members should he have dropped them off with?
In the book Williams makes it clear that his drunken father made it clear they were "niggers". In fact, equating Negroness with being a "nigger" or low class worthless behavior was internalized by his brother who spent much of his life proving what a "bad nigger" he really could be. Ultimately, this led to Williams' brother getting shot in the face and blinded for life. Williams, if memory serves, attributes this self-destructive behavior to "society", but in actuality it was due to the dysfunctional upbringing both Williams and his brother received from their father, an upbringing Williams in the book rebelled against. I’m sure there were many black-looking people who came from that community who didn’t constantly call their children “niggers” or claim that their more scholastically inclined children were “the white ones” as Williams’ father often described him to other people.
Perhaps Powell is biased against African Americans, but I too was puzzled by some of Williams’ father’s behavior after he left his wife. Why, for example, return to Muncie, Indiana where he spent most of his remaining days drunk and unable to hold down a job? It would have made more sense for him to move himself and his two sons to someplace like Washington, DC, New York, etc. At least there, if he decided to live as a “colored”, there would have been a stable community of respectable colored folks he could associate with and better job opportunities to boot (assuming he was willing to take advantage of them). One could even make the unpopular argument that he could have continued passing as white in another city in the northeast, at least for his sons’ sake. Instead he dumped them with his alcoholic mother in a part of town he initially sought to leave (and with good reason). It makes one wonder what really tore Williams’ parents’ marriage apart and why his two (?) sisters remained with the mother and Williams and his brother stayed with the father.
Yes, his father wasn't the greatest role model. But let's switch the story and make those kids dark skinned and all the rest the same. Being called niggers and what not, is part of the culture the father was raised in. The kids would still be ethnically Black or whatever. Dysfuntional family or not. It wasn't abuse that made them identify as Black, it was having a Black family.
But let me ask you this, if the family had been White, would it have been child abuse if the man was broke to drop his children off with his mother even if she was White Trash? Is it child abuse to drop a child off with poor uneducated family members? What family members should he have dropped them off with?
All other things being equal except race, yes. And poor uneducated family members shouldn't be confused with irresponsible, alcoholic, and indecent family members (Williams' father and allegedly his grandmother). Not all poor whites are white trash and not all white trash are poor. The same applies to their black counterparts.
Otorongo wrote:
Dysfuntional family or not. It wasn't abuse that made them identify as Black, it was having a Black family.
Williams has said on more than one occasion that he had no choice but to be black; society and life circumstances forced him to be black, not necessarily being raised in a black family.
My point at least is that his father was abusive and imparted to them the idea that being black is tied to exhibiting all sorts of social pathologies.
Joined: 02 Oct 2007 {Posts: 226 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Wed 03 Oct 2007 09:09 Post subject: It's Time 4 Foundation
Latinos tend to embrace their multiple components moreso than African-Americans;
one reason is that Native North American culture has been shattered,
whereas Native Latin American is strongly and wholistically
synchronized with West African & Western European culture.
Given the fact that Indigenousness is our very foundation,
small wonder that we remain psychologically fragmented.
http://www.intermix.org.uk/events/Sharron%20Hall.asp
Last edited by lsgh on Mon 19 Nov 2007 23:47; edited 1 time in total
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
