Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: Maps on the Commonwealth History Page | |
Author: Jim (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 17:15:11 11/02/04 Tue Later this week, I will be changing the maps on the Commonwealth History page on the FCS Canada web site. I will be removing the animated maps because they go too quickly. I will be replacing them with still maps of various stages of Empire development and compared to other empires from 1650 to 1943. Then I will have the modern maps of the Commonwealth and the proposed Federation further down. I have decided that it's time for a bit of British Isles education. I will put together historical maps showing the gradual unification of the British Isles from before 1066 to 1801 along with the maps of the development of the empire. Someone said earlier that I showed the proposed Federation in a 'sickly green'. How about if I changed it to gold? What are people's thoughts on this before I make these changes? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Maps | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:28:10 11/02/04 Tue I think that the green map is appropriate in it's context, to emphasise a new phase. I would not like to see the other maps changed from red. The idea of a U.K. history is a very sensible one as the current inter-dominion/U.K. relations are now of the same status as Scotland/England from 1603-1707. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Historical Maps | |
|
Author: Fred (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:36:53 11/04/04 Thu "I will put together historical maps showing the gradual unification of the British Isles from before 1066 to 1801 along with the maps of the development of the empire." Unification? Like the way Napoleon and Hitler "unified" Europe!!! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Someone from the UK attacking his own country? | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:38:09 11/04/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Fred... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:12:02 11/04/04 Thu How do you do? Please, Fred go to the main website of the FCS and read the proposals that we outline. You will find that they are as far from Bonaparist Imperialism and NAZI occupation as one can get! Paddy [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Imperialism not unification | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:26:22 11/05/04 Fri "Fred go to the main website of the FCS and read the proposals that we outline. You will find that they are as far from Bonaparist Imperialism and NAZI occupation as one can get!" The "unification" of the British isles was by imperialism... haven't you heard? Ireland, Wales and Cornwall were CONQUERED. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: thats a little random | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:27:55 11/05/04 Fri How the unification of Britain came about doesnt really matter, were talking about the CANZUK [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: CANZ vs UK | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:31:10 11/05/04 Fri "How the unification of Britain came about doesnt really matter, were talking about the CANZUK" Well, let me put it another way. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were conquered and had most of their natives killed off and lands taken. The same processes happened in the "UK" bit, but perhaps not taken to the same extremes. At least the Welsh and Irish aren't minorities in their own countries like the Maori or Aborigines (the Cornish are now though). Come to think of it, when you talk about this Commonwealth thing, do any of the natives of CANZ actually back the idea? Even a handful? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: who knows | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:36:49 11/05/04 Fri Well I doubt any of these natives have even heard of the idea seeing as only a handful of "non-natives" have. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Natives... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:37:06 11/05/04 Fri Define natives. No-one is indegienous to anywhere, save for Africans. We are not here to discuss the pros and cons of the British Empire, which has long been consigned to politically correct dusy. My sympathies lie with these people, but then, what are we going to do? Offer compensation to people who have been dead between six-hundred and 150 years ago? All we can do from the past is learn from it; and one of its many lessons is that we are stronger together than apart. We have worked successfully together for many years. Geography and Politics has pushed us apart. We are in no way suggesting the annexation of these countries. We are proposing a strong, federated, localised, and democratic union, hopefully under the benevolence and tradition of the Crown. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Natives | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:23:01 11/05/04 Fri "No-one is indegienous to anywhere, save for Africans. "We are not here to discuss the pros and cons of the British Empire, which has long been consigned to politically correct dusy." B-r political correctness. Thousands slaughtered! Their lands taken... the descendants of the natives of these places living sometimes in dives and poverty... the results are still there. The politically correct brigade usually are white and middle class and trying to steal these people's culture too! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:41:27 11/05/04 Fri I don't support Political Correctness. In my opinion, if someone wants to say that gays/criminals/homeless/drug users/ethnic minorities/fireworks are the cause of global warming, mass extinction, and the use of CFCs, go ahead, whether a few EU politicans agree with you or not. Freedom of Speech and all that. However, as I said - or rather, inferred - we cannot possible be held liable for the actions of our forebearers. I might add that the British were certainly not the only nation participating in this regard, and nor were they worst. The nations discused within the FCS - the Crown Commonwealth - all have adequet levels of social security and education to combat poverty. Other nations are not relevant to this discussion; I refer you to the British Empire Forum [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Question | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:22:46 11/13/04 Sat May I ask, since you seem utterly opposed to every opinion expressed on this forum, to the whole concept of the FC, and to all the values of anyone remotely connected with this movement, why do you consider it a daily imperative to visit the forum? I do not frequent White Supremacist Forums, or the Catholics Against Homosexuality Forum, or the IRA Sympathisers Forum, or the Al Qa'eda Helpful Suggestions Forum, because (a) I know that my input would never be welcome, appreciated, or even relevant, and (b) I would end up spending a large proportion of every day reading things which would make me go beserk, and ergo reduce my quality of life. Might I suggest that you set up your own forum? The Anti-FC Forum, for example? Or the French Politics Can Work In Britain Too Forum? Or perhaps the There is Nothing In Our History Of Which To Be Proud So We Should All Commit A Mass Suicide Of 120 Million People To Atone For Our Sins Forum? Or, best of all, The I'm Opposed To Anthing Which Anyone Might Say On Principle Forum... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: colonisation | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:48:08 11/05/04 Fri Obviously we can't deny that the cultures currently existing in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are the products of colonisation. We should then admit that English culture is also a result of a long process of invasions and assimilations. What's more, the Irish, Welsh and Cornish cultures are also all products of an earlier wave of invasions and colonisation. None of this is reversible. Sending Australians of European ancestry “back” to Europe is no more plausible or rational than sending all Celts back to Austria, where Celtic culture appears to have arisen. In Australia, there is evidence of distinct waves of people arriving over periods of tens of thousands of years: the people we call “Aboriginal” are not all one, just as the people we call “European” are not all one. In New Zealand, the Maori colonised and enslaved the Moriori, many of whom still live on the Chatham Islands. So, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys now? None of this is reversible: we have to start from where we are. An “independent” Australia has not been good for the Aboriginal peoples – that is my country’s greatest shame – so there is no real reason why they, as a group, would want to keep the current political arrangement rather than be part of a larger grouping. If you asked Aboriginal people whether it would be a good thing for “white” Australians to have to share power with people from New Zealand, Canada and the UK, a lot of them would probably say “they could hardly do a worse job than the lot we have now.” I hope that a Federal Commonwealth will result in my people becoming a bit more open minded about our relationship with Aboriginal people. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Native support in Canada | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:22:25 11/05/04 Fri Curnoack - Read your history of Canada and you will find that aboriginal peoples here have more of an affinity with the Crown than with some of the local governments. "The Great Mother", Queen Victoria, was the reason why Sitting Bull immediately after taking out Custer at Little Big Horn - lived in Canada, dealt with the Mounties, for years without incident. Crees in northern Quebec have made clear that if les Quebecois wanted to separate, they weren't going anywhere. They view the federal government in Ottawa as the inheritor of the Crown's authority. While you're at it, do a Google search on the names Joseph and Molly Brant... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ROFLMAO. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:31:56 11/05/04 Fri ROFL! Sorry, that made me laugh. Yes, the Welsh may have been conquered originally by the English... but Cornwall? LMAO. As for the Scottish; we'll that's not even funny, let alone historically accurate. In fact, technically, the English were conquered by the Scottish monarchy, if anything. The relevant Act of Union was a treaty. Go look up the word, and preferably some history, before you continue. Unless you really were joking - unfortunately, the internet is not one to convey satire. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Cornwall - no joke... | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:35:28 11/05/04 Fri "As for the Scottish; we'll that's not even funny, let alone historically accurate. " Scotland wasn't included on that list. "Yes, the Welsh may have been conquered originally by the English... but Cornwall?" Yes. Have you ever heard of An Gof? Or Trelawney? Or how the Cornish were ethnically cleansed from Exeter? http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/history/ab-hi01a.htm Cornwall Council's website -> 927 Athelstan, eldest son of Edward the Elder and grandson of Alfred, attacks the south western Celts, forcing their withdrawal from Exeter. There is no record of him taking his campaigns into Cornwall. It seems probable that Hywel, King of the Cornish, agreed to pay tribute to Athelstan, as did Alfred the Great, and thus avoided more attacks and maintained a high degree of autonomy. [As did the rulers of Scotland and Wales at various periods] 1120 (circa) Ingulf's Chronicle records Cornwall as a nation distinct from England. 1173 Reginald, Earl of Cornwall, grants a charter to his 'free bugesses of Triueru', possibly during 1173, and he addresses his meetings at Truro to 'All men both Cornish and English' suggesting a continuing differentiation. Subsequently, for Launceston, Reginald's Charter continues that distinction - 'To all my men, French, English and Cornish'. 1261 A Charter for the removal of sea sand distinguishes between rights in Cornwall and England. 1497 Cornish uprising against Henry VII’s taxation to pay for his war against the Scots, which is a curtailment of Cornish constitutional rights under the Stannary law Charter of 1305 (that no tax of 10ths and 15ths may be raised in Cornwall). Resistance, particularly at St. Keverne under the leadership of Michael Joseph an gof, gains momentum at Bodmin when taken up by lawyer, Thomas Flamank. They lead a march to London, are joined by Lord Audley en route, but are confronted by 10000 of Henry’s men under Lord Daubeney. On 16th June the Cornish force, armed only with country weapons, are routed. Audley, Flamank and Joseph are executed. The Cornish are resentful… On September 7th Perkin Warbeck, pretender to the throne, lands at Whitesand Bay, near Land’s End. Warmly welcomed, he is proclaimed King Richard IV at Bodmin. 1508 ‘Charter of Pardon’ granted by Henry VII states "that no statutes, acts, ordinances… or proclamations shall take effect in…[Cornwall] or elsewhere to the prejudice or in exoneration of the said tinners, bounders, possessors of tinworks… dealers in white tin or the heirs or successors of any of them, unless there has previously been convened twenty-four good and lawful men of the four stannaries of the county of Cornwall…; so that no statutes …[etc.] to be made in future by us, our heirs and successors, or by the said Prince and Duke of Cornwall for the time being shall be made except with the consent of the said twenty-four men so elected and appointed…" allowed the Cornish Stannary Parliament to veto English legislation. This is extant legislation. Sources 1509 Henry VIII's coronation procession includes "nine children of honour" representing "England and France, Gascony, Guienne, Normandy, Anjou, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland." 1515 As part of the colonisation of Ireland an English official suggests that one man should be sent from "every parish in England, Cornwall and Wales". 1542 Andrew Boorde's First boke of the introduction of knowledge... records that "In Cornwall is two speches, the one is naughty Englysshe and the other is Cornysshe speche. And there may be many men and women the which cannot speak one word of Englysshe but all Cornysshe." 1549 Uprising in protest against the imposition by Edward VI of the use of the Book of Common Prayer in English. This spells the end for the use of Cornish language. Sources 1603 Upon the death of Queen Elizabeth, the Venetian ambassador described her as ruling over five different peoples: English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish and Irish. 1856 On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) makes this submission. - "That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England." 1960's Counter-urbanisation results in major inward migration to Cornwall. 1977 The Stannators right to veto Westminster legislation is confirmed by Parliament. 1987 The Duke of Cornwall suggests the formation of a Devon and Cornwall Development Corporation thereby promoting closer administrative links. Concerned Cornish label this concept 'Devonwall'. 1997 (24th May) Keskerdh Kernow marchers set off from St. Keverne in remembrance of 1497 events. 2002 (5th Nov) UK Government confirms that Cornish will be included in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, joining Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster Scots as a protected and promoted language within the United Kingdom [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: And your point... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:56:38 11/05/04 Fri Originally England used to be about 10 countries... Cornwall happened to join later... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That Cornwall has a history | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:05:59 11/05/04 Fri "Originally England used to be about 10 countries... Cornwall happened to join later..." Hitler would have liked England to be a later part of Germany... didn't make it so. Cornwall still has a degree of identity that no other English county has, a legal status none of them have, an independence movement (as opposed to devolution) which none of them have (even if it is smaller than Scotland and Wales), its own living indigenous language, which no other English county has an equivalent of... I could go on. Cornwall is not the same as Kent or Yorkshire in those regards... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: And...? | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:06:58 11/05/04 Fri The FCS, for the most part, will probably support yourselves having a regional assembly. Several people have agreed that this is perfectly alright, indeed, better for everyone else (for population voting reasons), should the majority of Cornwall agree to it. However, there is a difference in the analogy you've used there - Hitler lost. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Britian | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:15:24 11/05/04 Fri Yay! Stick with British then; I do. In fact, I despise people that treat England as either a separate soverign entity from the UK or as synonomous with it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Regional Assembly | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:16:40 11/05/04 Fri "The FCS, for the most part, will probably support yourselves having a regional assembly. Several people have agreed that this is perfectly alright, indeed, better for everyone else (for population voting reasons), should the majority of Cornwall agree to it." If you do, then you are good people, and I may even have some sympathy... "However, there is a difference in the analogy you've used there - Hitler lost." This is true, but William the Conqueror won, and made England part of Normandy for a while. Peter the Great won, and made Ingria into Russia. (Ingria is the area around Leningrad). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: the part I don't understand | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:08:14 11/05/04 Fri Curnoack, I want my small country to be part of something bigger so that it doesn't get lost in a world of big players. You (I gather) want your far smaller country to stand by itself. I don't know why. I am happy to stack up layers of identity - there is no contradiction for me in being a Sydneysider and an Australian and a member of the Commonwealth. I'm not sure that I follow why you see Cornish and British identities as contradictory. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Cornish and British | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:12:16 11/05/04 Fri "I am happy to stack up layers of identity - there is no contradiction for me in being a Sydneysider and an Australian and a member of the Commonwealth. I'm not sure that I follow why you see Cornish and British identities as contradictory." It's easier to reconcile Cornish and British than Cornish and English, as many of the Scots and Welsh do. In fact the Cornish are the original "British" before the Anglo-Saxon Germans came and drove us off the land, and stole our name. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: yes, Cornish, Welsh and Breton | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:18:21 11/05/04 Fri Yes, but this seems to me like something that happened a good while back. What I don't follow is why it would lead people to want to leave the UK, which is something much more related to the present. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: EU, raw deals etc, and the Simpsons | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:24:32 11/05/04 Fri "Yes, but this seems to me like something that happened a good while back. What I don't follow is why it would lead people to want to leave the UK, which is something much more related to the present." Because we still get a raw deal, and the process still continues. Why don't you guys like the EU for example? I often find people come out with the same arguments against the EU, they protest against with the break-up of the UK... ---------------------------------- Simpsons cry freedom for Cornwall The Cornish language and the campaign for Cornish self-government has gone global with the announcement that a character in the American cartoon series ‘The Simpsons’ is to ‘embrace the cause of Cornish independence.’ In a special edition of the animated comedy, Lisa Simpson will run around the family home waving a Cornish flag and shouting ‘Rydhsys rag Kernow lemmyn’ – Freedom for Cornwall now. The cartoon will be screened as an alternative to the Queen’s speech on Christmas Day. The story was carried worldwide. The Sydney Morning Telegraph headline stated ‘Simpsons cry freedom for Cornwall,’ Malaysia’s Utasan declared ‘Lisa Simpson takes up the call for Cornish liberation’ and the Scotsman led on ‘Cartoon character to voice support for Cornish independence.’ It was also covered by CNN, Sky News and a host of British television and radio stations, with the BBC declaring that ‘Lisa puts cool into the Cornish cause.’ It was interesting to note that the non-British media added some interesting perspectives to the wider context of the story. Reuters stated that ‘… bordered by water on three sides, Cornwall has remained stubbornly distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom. Nationalists in the county think the area should be accorded the status Wales and Scotland enjoy, having devolved powers if not outright independence.’ Malaysia’s Utasan, based in Kuala Lumpar, referred to Cornwall’s separate culture, identity and language, as well as the ‘claim that there are constitutional doubts as to the legitimacy of English rule in Cornwall.’ Of the London papers, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Mail and The Times all covered the story. Predictably, The Sun managed to come up with the headline ‘Simpsons get corny.’ None of these papers managed any serious commentary on the future prospects for the Cornish language or the campaign for a Cornish Assembly. That was not surprising. The campaign for a Cornish Assembly has, so far, been largely ignored by the London press. Even in 2001, when evidence for 50,000 declarations was taken to Downing St, the campaign met with complete metropolitan indifference. The event was only covered by one London paper – the Morning Star. One newspaper journalist had stated, in an email, ‘this is probably the most significant political story to have come out of Cornwall in decades …’ His publication however, along with all the other newspapers and magazines failed to cover the story. And yet, when it is reported that a cartoon character is going to wave a cartoon flag and utter a phrase in Cornish, there has been a media furore. What a stark contrast to the lack of serious reporting of Cornish political issues. Mebyon Kernow welcomes the publicity surrounding the Simpsons, which will raise the profile of Cornwall’s culture and political aspirations. But we would also welcome a press that takes Cornwall and Cornish aspirations seriously. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:45:03 11/11/04 Thu I have long felt that the world would be a better place if our political opinions were derived from episodes of The Simpsons. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You are doing it again | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:18:33 11/05/04 Fri There you go again, this typical nationalist 'pity me' attitude that someone else hundreds of years ago did us an injustice so we must hate their descendents. This must stop. We must look to the future and concentrate on healing wounds and working together, not harping on about things from the distant past. This is also a problem in my country with Quebec's racist language laws. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Wars... | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:21:14 11/05/04 Fri "We must look to the future and concentrate on healing wounds and working together, not harping on about things from the distant past." I'm sorry, but I don't hear that sentiment about WWII on here. That was a horrible event in which some of my relatives died, and the people who started it be damned, but ordinary Europeans on both sides paid for it. The same can be said about WWI or the Vietnam war. "This is also a problem in my country with Quebec's racist language laws." So I gather, they are very unfair as regards the indigenous languages of Quebec. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quebec language law | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:02:14 11/12/04 Fri Curnoack: FYI, the language laws in Quebec benefit French at the expense of other languages. The indigenous peoples, such as the Cree and Montegnais, live in remote areas of the north and are rather insular. The real target of Bill 101 is the anglophone population. Yes, there is a jurisdiction within the British Commonwealth where the outward display of the English language on outdoor signs will get you a fine! You might find it hard to square this reality with your own preconceived biases... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:34:24 11/13/04 Sat And I understand that, in Hereford, according to an ancient charter which is still on the Statute Books and ergo part of the Constitution, it is still obligatory for all citizens to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow if he is seen in the grounds of the Cathedral. But do Welshmen get peppered with arrows like pincushions by the local burghers of Hereford? No, they don't. The point is that, if you are remotely fair, you have to admit that all of these things were not just "in the past", but more than 1000 years ago. Do you have any concept of how long a thousand years is? You might as well run a vindictive and spiteful campaign against the Italians on the grounds that they brutally occupied Britain in A.D. 44, or whenever it was. Or perhaps South Indians should rise up against the North because of the Aryan Invasions of 1500 BC? And the the North Indians declare war on Iran because of the Mughal Invasion in the 16th Century? Personally, I think that we should all destroy Africa, because those bloody Homo Sapiens have now 'conquered' every part of the globe. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |