bestbuskers

Just another WordPress.com site

Where do buskers come from ?

1

NSW CENTENARY OF FEDERATION COMMITTEE 

Barton Lectures 

MORE OR LESS DIVERSE – Barton Lecture No. 6 by John Hirst

As I was walking up Martin Place, I saw a Vietnamese busker playing a

didgeridoo.  My theme is Diversity and Unity in modern Australia.

Should the busker be set down under Diversity?  Previously buskers in Martin

Place were Anglo-Celts; now buskers can come from any nation and race on

earth.  Or does the busker better belong under Unity? Previously Aborigines played the

didgeridoo; now Australians of all sorts play the didgeridoo.

The standard story of what is happening to our society is that it is becoming

more diverse. The great migration since the second World War broke the unity

of the British population of Australia and replaced it with a diverse mix of ethnic

groups. At first the official policy was to assimilate these groups into the host

culture, into the Australian way of life. Now the policy of multiculturalism

welcomes and encourages diversity.

My first message—my quite unsurprising message— is that government policy

frequently does not work. What has actually happened during the time of the

great migration is very different from what policy intended.

In the 1940s and 1950s the government supported by its people did not want

migrants to form separate enclaves and perpetuate their own culture and

identity. However, this was a free society and its freedoms could not be denied

to migrants.  They did in fact create enclaves; they lived close to each other, opened their own

businesses and restaurants and employed their compatriots in them, relaxed in

their own clubs, played in their own sporting teams, read newspapers in their

own language; married brides brought out from their home country. Little Italys

and Greek quarters appeared in the capital cities. Suddenly Australia was a very

diverse place.  From the 1970s official policy has been multiculturalism. But just as ethnic

groups received official recognition and support they began to dissolve; some

disappeared altogether.   The process of intermarriage between ethnic groups and between them and old

Australians proceeded apace. Most of the migrants’ children married people

who were not of their parents’ ethnic group. The rates differed in the different groups. The Greeks tended

much more to marry each other, but by the second generation nearly half of them were marrying ’out’.

The Czechs mostly married other people and disappeared.   Most children of non-English speaking migrants

spoke English to each other.   If they retained their parents’ language, they used it only in addressing their

parents or others of the first generation. This was also true of the Greeks where  the retention of language

into the second generation was the highest of all ethnic groups.

There was also a fall-off in the Greeks’ distinctive religious adherence over the generations. Ninety per cent of

the first generation were Orthodox, 82 per cent of the second; 45 per cent of the third.

The territorial base of the 1950 migrant communities disappeared. Migrants  prospered and moved from the

inner cities to the suburbs dispersing themselves widely in the process. Their restaurants might continue to

operate in their old locations, but if the Italian restaurants in Carlton are still owned by Italians, they

do not live above the shop.  Multicultural policy envisaged a world of distinct ethnic groups. This was more

and more make-believe. By the late 1980s the demographer Charles Price reported that the Australian

population consisted of three groups: 47% British and old Australian, 23% Non-English speaking migrants

and their children; and 30% a mixture of the two. The mixture was larger than the migrant group and was

set to become the largest group. Price concluded: ‘the ethnic character of the Australian population is NOT one

where separate ethnic groups live side by side with relatively little social intercourse, constantly perpetuating

their own languages and cultures and keeping distinct by continued marriage within the group’.

It should now be obvious that it has not been government policy that has determined what has happened.

In coming to this country the migrants were not encountering a policy, but the Australian people, day by day,

in myriad ways.  The outcome of that meeting was determined by the structure, dynamics and culture of the host

society and by the composition and aspirations of the migrant population.

Let’s look at the migrants first. They came not from one society but many and were determined to achieve

material success. Because they were strangers in the land they naturally sought out their own kind and

wanted to hold on to traditional ways. But since they also wanted to do well, they had to learn the ways

of their new country and adapt to them. They were both assimilationists and multiculturalists.

The migrants were and are in no doubt that there is an Australian way of doing things, an Australian culture.

This is the second way that the multicultural label for Australia is misleading. It suggests that there is simply

diversity; that there is no dominant culture.   Migrants who want to get on and be accepted know better.

In a Nadia Wheatley story a Greek husband is rejecting a request from his wife that the family acquire a goat:

‘A goat, she says…And since when did Aussies have goats? Tell me, do you see John Laws with a  goat?

Or Ned Kelly?   Do you think Phar Lap was a goat? In case you haven’t noticed, I have a business to run.

I can’t afford to be a freak.’  More telling is the story of a leader in the Sri Lankan community, which comes

from the book A Change of Skies by Yasmine Gooneratne. Mr. Koyako is worried that the young Sri Lankans

in Australia are being lured from their culture.  He insists on the observance of the Sri Lankan practice of giving

personal names in full. His own name is Mr. Bekaboru Kiyanahati Balapan Koyako.

Australians, he finds, do not like such long names and he is annoyed that they are always jumbling and

shortening them. He decides that Australians are a rude and not very intelligent people.

One day when Mr. Koyako visited Yasmine’s home, Bruce Trevally, an old Australian neighbour, called by to bring

some peaches. Yasmine’s husband had to introduce the two men, and of course he had to give the Sri Lankan name in

full. ‘Bruce’, he said, ‘I’d like you to meet our friend Mr. Bekaboru Kiyanahati Balapan Koyako’. ‘ ‘That’s some name

you’ve got mate’, Bruce said admiringly. ‘Almost a short story’. Mr Koyako was unused to such directness, but he rallied

strongly. To the husband he said ‘Why should you bother your friend with my long name?’.

And turning to Bruce he held out his hand. ‘G’day mate’, he said, ‘Just call me Kojak’.

Now look at the host society. In the early critical decades of the migration programme the economy was prosperous and

expanding rapidly; the trade unions insisted that migrants get the going rate of wages; and there was easy access to home

ownership. If the migrants arrived poor they did not stay poor for long. The society into which they moved was egalitarian

in tone with only a weak status hierarchy and a strong belief that background was irrelevant to social acceptance.

Until the 1940s it had been committed to maintaining a white British society but once the migrants had arrived it was mostly

willing to accept them.  There was prejudice and resentment of course, but amazingly little. This is the great Australian success story.

The nature of the society is crucial. Imagine millions of migrants going to a country that cared a lot about who your parents were,

or your schooling, or how you spoke, or whether you had read the right books, or whether you gave people their right titles.

Australia is the opposite of all this. Because it is easy-going, informal and egalitarian it was more welcoming to migrants and

wanted them to have ‘a fair go’.

Another test is to imagine how many other nations would have been instantly ready to bestow their name on newcomers.

Arthur Calwell told Australians that they had to call the migrants New Australians. Let’s try this style for some other countries.

New Japanese? New Germans? New French? New Americans?— maybe. New Britons?— perhaps if they came from the empire, but would

10,000 Italians landing at Dover be called New English?—No.

The migrants of the 1940s and 1950s were accepted on this one condition, not that they immediately drop their old ways,

but that they did not parade their differences or transfer their old world- disputes to this new land. This is a core value of the Australian

culture; it’s been there almost from the beginning of European settlement; it operated unaltered through the assimilation and

multicultural eras. It is not an official policy but an ingrained belief in ordinary people. It is the belief that there should not be poisonous

divisions between people; that this can be a new and better land but only if old- world disputes are kept out of it. The Australian style is to keep

differences quarantined and not to let them rampage in the world at large.

Of course there have been those who wanted to maintain old-world disputes.  The founding European population consisted of three major

ethnic groups, the English, Scots and Irish with plenty of mutual hostility and these divisions were intensified by the split between Catholic and Protestant. And yet the founding

settlers lived among each other; there were no enclaves. The formula for social

peace was not to let these differences get out of hand; to find ways of isolating

and transcending them. In public life it often looked as if differences had got out

of hand, but at a community level polarisation did not occur.

This demand not to push old allegiances is still insistent. In the 1950s migrants

were told their disputes threatened the Australian way of life. Now they are told

their disputes threaten multicultural Australia. It’s the same message.

I have been playing down the influence of government policy. It has had its uses.

It is best thought of not as controlling events, but in reconciling people to change.

In the 1940s and 1950s the policy of assimilation reassured old Australians that

their world was not going to change when of course it did. In the 1970s and

1980s the policy of multiculturalism reassured ethnic leaders that their

communities and culture were not going to weaken and disappear when in fact

they were.

In the last two decades migration has been occurring in different circumstances.

In the 1950s an unskilled migrant speaking no English was at work in a factory

the week of his arrival. Now the unskilled work has gone and migrants without

skill and the English language remain unemployed for a long time. It may be that

we are now witnessing the creation of semi-permanent enclaves in places like

Sydney’s Cabramatta and Melbourne’s Footscray where there are large

numbers of Vietnamese. Here unemployed youth and drug taking and trafficking

are creating social malaise. Some Vietnamese are doing very well and we are

accustomed now to see Vietnamese young people among those who get high

academic honours. It may be that the Vietnamese story will mirror that of the

Italians and Greeks and that the early chapters are taking longer to pass.

But I support the decision of the present government to cut back on the family

reunion proportion of the migrant intake and to put more emphasis on skilled

migration. It does not make sense to bring unskilled people to a country with few

unskilled jobs. I am a supporter of a large migration programme, but I am not, as

5

you see, one of those who think that once you have started a migration

programme you can’t alter it. We must be free to examine what’s happening on

the ground and to discuss lowering the numbers and adjusting the mix and even

abandoning the programme altogether. The attempt to make this topic taboo is

a sort of treason against the nation.

I have spoken of an Australian culture and of its being crucial to the success of

the migration programme. It is ironic then that we now hear proposals that this

country can be held together without a distinctive Australian culture, that the

concept is outmoded, dangerous and oppressive. Here I part company with

Donald Horne, the initiator of this lecture series, and one of the most

distinguished advocates of the view that Australia should be held together by a

civic culture merely. According to this view, we need the civic virtues—tolerance,

fairness, a commitment to parliamentary democracy, respect for due process,

minority interests and diversity—and nothing more.

Now of course I support these civic virtues, but this seems to me a cold and

cerebral formula. It does not meet the human need for warmth and belonging.

There is nothing distinctive in these virtues. If we were truly a very diverse society

with a number of distinct ethnic groups each maintaining their own culture, this is

all that we might agree on. But as I have shown this is not modern Australia.

So here is my answer to the question of this lecture series: How are we to hold

together? By being Australian; by celebrating, exploring, criticising and

reassessing our Australian heritage, all the things that have defined and still

define what it means to be Australian. This is not to endorse some noisy

nationalism or to insist that we all think of ourselves as bushmen or to promote

some bland uniformity. I can best say what I think it does mean by reporting on

the work of the Civics Education Group of which I am chair.

This Group is in charge of the Commonwealth government’s civics and

citizenship programme in schools, Discovering Democracy. The lessons we

devised aimed to give an understanding of our legal and political systems and

the opportunities and responsibilities of citizenship. But in addition we included

a series of lessons on how Australians have over the years answered two

questions: who is an Australian and what sort of nation is Australia to be.

We have also produced a series of anthologies, two for primary school and two

for secondary. We called them Australian Readers. They include stories, poems,

songs, speeches and extracts from novels, autobiographies and histories.  We

encouraged the cultivation of civic understanding and virtue by including

Lincoln’s Gettsyburg address, Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’ speech,

Pericles’ funeral oration in democratic Athens, Tom Paine on the rights of man,

George Orwell on pigs and equality and much more. But we also included

Australian material. This is how we sought to feed the imagination of young

Australians. We gave them

*Aboriginal dream-time stories

*Henry Lawson’s story ‘The Drover’s Wife’

*An account of the Myall Creek massacre

6

*Albert Facey’s telling in A Fortunate Life of his epic journey to escape a

tyrannical boss when he was 8 years old

*An extract from Douglas Stewart’s play on Ned Kelly

*The convict ballad Jim Jones

I’ll give the law a little shock

Remember what I say

They’ll yet regret they sent Jim Jones

In chains to Botany Bay

*Fred McCubbin’s painting of The Pioneers

*The story of how the penniless Jewish migrant Sidney Myer started his shops

*A Sidney Nolan painting of Burke and Wills on camels

*How Alan Marshall author of I can jump puddles demanded  proper wages

though he was on crutches

*How Weary Dunlop stood up to the Japanese and cared for his men

*From Sally Morgan’s My Place, her grandmother’s account of the colour bar in

Perth

*The speech written by Don Watson for Paul Keating on the burial of the

unknown soldier, the most eloquent honouring of the diggers in our literature.

These Readers went to all schools. We did not assume that this material was

irrelevant to the children of migrants. We assume that they will be Australians. Of

course we included material on migrant experience. The stories of the Greek

goat and Sri Lankan naming practices are included in the Australian Readers—

as is an account of the journey of a Vietnamese family from re-education camp

to what they call freedom in Australia.

I turn now to the division in Australian society that we find most puzzling and

disturbing.

Over the past fifty years Aboriginal policy has followed a similar course to

migrant policy. In the 1940s and 1950s the aim for the Aborigines was that they

were to ‘live like white Australians do’. The expectation was that the Aborigines

would eventually be physically absorbed into the wider population and Aboriginal

culture would disappear.

Governments committed themselves to improving Aboriginal housing, health

and education. In the 1950s Aborigines were moved from camps and rubbish

tips on the edge of country towns to houses within the towns. This policy had only

limited success. Aborigines did not like being separated from each other and

scattered through the towns; the townspeople were generally hostile.

In the 1970s the policy was abandoned in favour of self- determination. Within a

multicultural Australia, Aborigines were to choose how and where they were to

live. What governments spent their money on remained the same and now there

was much more spent: on housing, health and education.

Some of what the assimilationists hoped for has come to pass. Most of the

Aborigines now do live in houses, two thirds of them live in towns and cities,

significant numbers are educated and skilled in the Western way, many have

intermarried with the wider community.  In Aboriginal households, 64% of the

couples consist of an Aborigine and a non-Aborigine. But with all these changes

Aboriginal identity has strengthened and in some places Aboriginal traditional

7

life survives. What would most surprise the assimilationists is that Aboriginal

painting, dance and music flourish and have been adopted as part of Australian

culture. Last year at the federation ceremonies in London a didgeridoo was

played in Westminster Abbey. In these regards the policy of self determination

and multiculturalism must be counted a success.

The continuing failure is that large numbers of Aborigines, particularly those in

the remote communities, are unhealthy, poorly housed and unemployed. We

commonly talk of them as (quote)  ‘disadvantaged’. In talking thus, we assume

that they want to play in the same game as ourselves, but are being held back;

they are handicapped. This is assimilation not as policy, but fantasy. If only there

were more funding and less racism, if only the Prime Minister would apologise

and Pauline Hanson disappear, if only there were a treaty, then Aborigines

would not live like this.

Consider how they do live on a remote settlement in the Northern Territory where

traditional culture is still strong. Here Aborigines marry each other and mostly in

the correct skin group. A family decides it wants to visit Darwin. They do not

have much money, certainly not enough for the airfare. They acquire enough for

the fare by collecting funds from kin— humbugging them is the term. They travel

to Darwin. They arrive unannounced at the home of kin knowing that they will be

put up. They may stay some time.  If by chance they cannot find a house to take

them, they will camp in some park or on the beach.

Here we can see what is called disadvantage at work. The health of these

people will suffer through overcrowding-doubling up with kin- or by camping out

with no facilities. The education of their children will be disrupted by the trip. The

house left empty on the settlement may be vandalised so on their return the

family will have to move in with others and make overcrowding permanent. The

people at the settlement, no matter what funds they may acquire, will always be

asset poor because of the claims of kin. Because these people want to live on a

remote settlement, few of them will have the chance of getting proper jobs.

But consider the advantages; consider why Aborigines are attached to their way

of life. Here are people with few monetary resources who are not tied down.

They assume that they can move freely round their realm. They travel without

forethought. Saving up and booking ahead are not necessary. Travel especially

travel to funerals is very important to them. Attending a funeral and the kin and

clan business that goes on there for several days is more important than keeping

the kids in school or showing up for work.

In these cases the policies of multiculturalism and self- determination are

working—Aborigines are choosing to live in a different way—but we don’t like

the outcome. Nor do Aboriginal leaders like this outcome. They regularly quote

damning figures on Aboriginal unemployment, health and housing. It is these

figures, too, that attract international attention. They are the political measures of

success and failure rather than how rigidly policy adheres to self-determination.

Our concern at Aboriginal health was so great that the federal government in

1995 abandoned the policy of self-determination in an effort to fix it.

8

Responsibility for health was taken from ATSIC, which is elected by Aborigines,

and given to the Commonwealth Department of Health.

Here is a great dilemma. Can Aborigines live as other Australians do and yet

retain their own culture? There may eventually be a satisfactory accommodation.

At the moment it is easy to see the difficulties.  Aborigines who believe that road

accidents and illhealth may be caused by sorcery, will not take the precautions

we do. At one settlement in the Territory the clerk told me of two Aboriginal

women who were meticulously clean in their work in the health centre; their

homes, by contrast, were so filthy that he had to prohibit his children from visiting

them. These women knew how to be clean but they did not see cleanliness as

relevant to their lives. It was whitefellas’ business.

Of course I have no answer to this dilemma. I would myself not have abandoned

the policy of self-determination in regard to health. Aboriginal leaders were

among those who urged a Commonwealth take-over. I think they should have

been told that if they did not like what ATSIC was doing, they should have

worked to fix ATSIC.

If the dilemma is to be solved it will be by Aborigines. Many of their leaders for

the present are pursuing other objects. Noel Pearson has rightly earned great

respect for his decision to return to his own people and attempt to solve the

problems they face.  He defines the chief problem as welfare dependency. He is

working to get proper jobs created in Cape York.

I wish him well. Getting the right sort of jobs in the right places is not an easy

thing. Our political leaders on both sides now say that the market alone should

be left to determine these matters. State governments, I notice, still interfere and

promise subsidies to business to locate in their territories. If Noel Pearson can

find businesses that will locate in Cape York so long as they are subsidised, I

hope governments will come to the party. My own view is that sufficient proper

jobs can not be created in the remote settlements and that if all the young are to

be employed they will have to leave. This does not mean that they would cease

to regard the traditional lands as home.

There is still a huge good will towards Aborigines, which is always seeking

some new initiative that will settle these difficulties or put us in the way of solving

them. The latest project is a treaty.

In Canada, the American colonies and New Zealand the British made treaties

with native people. No treaties were made in Australia and the advocates of a

treaty with the Aborigines offer as one of its rationales the need to redress that

omission. But a treaty with the Aborigines would not be with a traditional

grouping. The traditional groups numbered about 500 tribes, some of which

survive. The Aborigines are a group formed since1788 from those tribespeople

and their descendants who had the common experience of oppression and

exclusion at the hand of Europeans. People still living a traditional life do not

identify strongly as Aborigines.  They are firstly the Gurindiji or the Pitjantjatjara.

9

The advocates of a treaty are strangely blind to what has recently been done in

Australia. We now have a treaty. In 1993, following the Mabo decision of the

High Court, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Native Title Act. This

established the procedure by which traditional people can have their native title

restored to them; the mechanisms to allow them to manage their lands; the

limitations on their disposal; their rights to negotiate with anyone who wants to

use them.

This Act was passed after protracted negotiations in Canberra. An Aboriginal

delegation, led by Lois O’Donoghue, the chair of ATSIC, faced the

representatives of the farmers and miners.  The prime minister had to get a

consensus among these people and then carry it through the Senate that he did

not control. Some radical Aborigines were opposed to the compromises

necessary to this treaty-making and wanted to hold out for something better. Until

the last minute it looked as if the two Green senators would back them and stop

the passage of the Bill. A way through this labyrinth was found and at midnight on

22 December Prime Minister Keating was able to report that he had a deal. The

Aborigines cheered him.

When I saw photos on the front pages of the newspaper showing the delighted

Aboriginal negotiators and Mr Keating, with the prime minister’s arm around the

shoulder of Lois O’Donoghue, I thought: this is the moment of reconciliation; we

now have a treaty. Aborigines at last were players at the top table cutting the

best deal they could get with the nation’s prime minister. Now I hear on all sides

that reconciliation has scarcely begun and that we still don’t have a treaty.

As well as the big treaty there are a number of mini-treaties being negotiated

across the land. They go under the name of Indigenous Land Use Agreements.

These agreements are reached by direct negotiation between native-title

holders and other users of their land.

Pastoralists are agreeing to allow native title-holders access to their leaseholds

for hunting and ceremony. Aborigines are agreeing with miners about

exploration and the processes to be followed if mining actually commences.

When the Mackay Surf Lifesaving Club wanted to build a new clubhouse, the

Club and the local Council negotiated with the native-title holders who yielded

control over the site in return for a new park further along the beach.

Treaties with native-title holders already exist and more are being negotiated as

I speak. Should there in addition be a treaty with the Aborigines as a whole? We

have already recognised their special position in the nation and the particular

problems they face, by setting up ATSIC, a unique institution, an Aboriginal

parliament within the nation. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island

Commission, established in 1989, is given funds to spend on Aboriginal

advancement.

It is no wonder that those proposing a treaty have some difficulty in saying what it

will contain. Perhaps it should declare that Aborigines were the original owners

of the land who never agreed to the white occupation? The High Court in its

Mabo judgment has already done that.

10

Some proposals for a treaty seem to me fraught with difficulty and danger. There

are suggestions that a treaty should confer particular rights and privileges on

Aborigines and provide them with compensation. The immediate difficulty with

such a proposal would be to define who the Aborigines are.

An official definition already exists. It has three parts. An Aborigine has (1) to be

a person of Aboriginal descent, with no particular proportion of this ancestry

stipulated (2) to identify as an Aborigine, and (3) to be accepted by other

Aborigines as an Aborigine. This definition is appropriately loose. Aboriginal

communities in the more settled parts of the country have been very open and

accepting.

But this looseness is now being exploited. People are claiming to be Aborigines

partly in order to qualify for the benefits and opportunities specially provided for

Aborigines. Among the deceivers are prisoners in gaols and artists looking for

recognition.

Tasmania is the state in which the number of Aborigines is rising most rapidly.

Dr Cassandra Pybus, who knows the state and its records well, estimates that

three-quarters of the people now identifying as Aborigines do not have an

Aboriginal ancestor.

In 1997 Michael Mansell, the Aboriginal leader in Tasmania, brought an action in

the federal court to challenge the right of 11 people to stand as candidates for

ATSIC. He claimed they were not Aborigines. The judge was plainly unhappy at

having to examine lines of descent; he was prepared to give the benefit of the

doubt to people who had a strong family tradition that there was an Aboriginal

ancestor. He excluded only two of the 11. He said that today identity is much

more social than genetic. In effect he relaxed an already loose definition. This

might not matter too much when the issue is standing for ATSIC but if under a

treaty a class of people with special legal rights was being defined, this

looseness would be unacceptable.

Cassandra Pybus, who gave evidence in this case, is sure that some people

accepted by the judge have no Aboriginal ancestor. All their ancestors were

settlers. She notes the sad irony of this outcome. The descendants of those who

shot the Aborigines and took their land are now receiving benefits earmarked for

Aborigines.

Many people do not recognise how well integrated Aborigines are. When they

think of Aborigines they think of tribal people in the outback, they don’t think of

suburbanites who have been suburbanites for three generations. Consider this

household. The husband is an Aborigine of mixed descent; one of his four

grandparents was Aboriginal. His wife is of English, Scots, Irish and Italian

descent. Their oldest daughter in her late teens becomes interested in her

Aboriginal heritage.  Her siblings show no interest. She declares that she is an

Aborigine and seeks out other Aborigines. There can be no objection to this; it is

a free country. But is it seriously proposed that by treaty she should officially be

declared indigenous, that she acquire special rights, and that she be given

compensation for the loss of her ancestral land, language and culture? The

notion is absurd.

A treaty has been criticised as divisive. It certainly would be and in a more

profound sense than is commonly realised. The division and the bitterness would

begin with the act of defining who the Aborigines are. It would give members of

the same family a different status. Remember, in a majority of Aboriginal

households the couples are mixed.

The marrying and partnering of people of all sorts across all boundaries is the

great unifying force in Australia. The United States never saw such a rapidly

melting, melting pot. It will produce before too long a new people who will have

darker skins, much better suited to this place and our sun.

In fifty years there may still be buskers in Martin Place and they may play

didgeridoos, but the observer will no longer be able to label them Anglo-Celt or

Vietnamese; they will have no other name than Australian. I am sorry I will not live

to see that day for the Australians are going to be a beautiful people.

6 responses to “Where do buskers come from ?

  1. Sally December 1, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    Manger plus de sodium pousse votre corps à retenir de l’eau, ce qui peut vous ballonner et vous faire prendre du poids.

    • swellgrounds September 30, 2016 at 9:35 am

      where do buskers come from ? the heart of humanity they make sounds to heal the soul and they do it almost for free some recommended reading is the professor from Canada her name is professor marie battise one of her books is RECLAMING INDIGENOUS VOICE AND VISION isn’t it true? study tetsumonkai kookai and the 88 places it is also worthy

  2. Gaston November 8, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    Assim, é natural que muitos homens queiram saber como aumentar tamanho do pênis sem cirurgia.

  3. Randal November 8, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    C’est en cela que les PUA restent des nazes 2.0, et gardent un égo de petit
    garçon alors même qu’ils jouent à l’homme, au lieu d’en être un.

  4. google plus apple September 26, 2014 at 9:47 am

    whoah this weblog is excellent i really like studying your articles.
    Stay up the great work! You already know, many people
    are looking round for this info, you can help them greatly.

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

%d bloggers like this: