 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dr Pie
Dr Pie
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | | Dr Pie wrote: | | This was genocide every bit as much as the mass murder in Germany or Rwanda. It was the intention of the State Governments to "breed out" the Aborigines. This is elimination of a race, i.e. Genocide. |
What a terrible insult to the victims of these slaughters.
How can you ever compare the 'breeding out' of a race with the murder of thousands of people?
Even the wildest, most paranoid conspiracy theories about what the government of the time were thinking could never come close to the mass murders you refer to. |
Since two of my Grandparents were murdered by the Nazis in Auschwitz, I think I might know what I am talking about.
Genocide is the deliberate destruction of a race, whether done by mass murder or breeding out. Hitler intended that when he had finished his murders there would be no Jews or Gypsies anywhere in the world. A O Neville and the politicians who presided over his activities intended that at the end of their activities there would be no more Australian Aborigines.
Obviously mass murder is more brutal, more horrible and more obviously something that brands its perpetrators as unfit for membership of the human race. However any attempt to destroy a race, even if it involves no deaths and limited brutality, is still evil and deserves to be condemned.
_________________
Born and raised in Black and White |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Hitler was an evil man if there ever was one. |
|
|
|
|
joffa corfe
PREMIERS 2010
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | | David wrote: | | Dr Pie wrote: | | This was genocide every bit as much as the mass murder in Germany or Rwanda. It was the intention of the State Governments to "breed out" the Aborigines. This is elimination of a race, i.e. Genocide. |
What a terrible insult to the victims of these slaughters.
How can you ever compare the 'breeding out' of a race with the murder of thousands of people?
Even the wildest, most paranoid conspiracy theories about what the government of the time were thinking could never come close to the mass murders you refer to. |
Since two of my Grandparents were murdered by the Nazis in Auschwitz, I think I might know what I am talking about.
Genocide is the deliberate destruction of a race, whether done by mass murder or breeding out. Hitler intended that when he had finished his murders there would be no Jews or Gypsies anywhere in the world. A O Neville and the politicians who presided over his activities intended that at the end of their activities there would be no more Australian Aborigines.
Obviously mass murder is more brutal, more horrible and more obviously something that brands its perpetrators as unfit for membership of the human race. However any attempt to destroy a race, even if it involves no deaths and limited brutality, is still evil and deserves to be condemned. |
Ditto and well said
Obvioulsly some people think we never ever had a white Australia policy maybe we have become as stupid and as ignorant as the Brits as they tend to believe Churchill was a myth!
_________________
Football is Greatness
http://youtu.be/tJwoKbPOsQE |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | Since two of my Grandparents were murdered by the Nazis in Auschwitz, I think I might know what I am talking about.
Genocide is the deliberate destruction of a race, whether done by mass murder or breeding out. Hitler intended that when he had finished his murders there would be no Jews or Gypsies anywhere in the world. A O Neville and the politicians who presided over his activities intended that at the end of their activities there would be no more Australian Aborigines.
Obviously mass murder is more brutal, more horrible and more obviously something that brands its perpetrators as unfit for membership of the human race. However any attempt to destroy a race, even if it involves no deaths and limited brutality, is still evil and deserves to be condemned. |
What I'm struggling to grasp here is what is so important about a 'race', as such.
This is the problem when words like 'genocide' are thrown around. It's essentially playing with words - even if this is a valid definition of the word, it's still chalk and cheese compared to real genocide, and the method in which it is usually carried out - i.e. mass murders.
Feel free to disagree, but I can't help but feel that the real tragedy of Auschwitz was not the possible extinction of the Jewish race, but the fact that so many innocent people were killed for no other crime than their ethnic descent. That is the real monstrosity.
If you take the former view, I'd like to see further explanation. Do you see the need to preserve races as if they were rare flora or fauna? I certainly don't see it this way, although I can see the sadness in the extinction of traditional languages and cultures (while accepting that such extinction is a perfectly natural and normal part of human history).
This has really made me curious as to Neville and co's real motives for this policy (if indeed it was simply a desire to eradicate the Aboriginal race). Without trying to go off on too much of a tangent, I've always believed that every idea, every theory or argument has some validity, and deserves to be explored, even if it is discovered that they are/were based on ignorance or fear.
Still, I realise if I grant you this point to be truth, that the stolen generation was based on nothing other than a desire to rid Australia of its Aboriginal population, then the forced removal of children from their families does become far more heinous. Referring to my above paragraph, it doesn't matter how good or rational the intentions seemed, in hindsight, it created negative consequences, and so the actions cannot be justified.
I still stand by my original point, however. To equate Australia's stolen generations with the genocides of Rwanda and Nazi Germany is, to say the least, horribly inappropriate.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
sherrife 
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Dave mate... you're defending one of the worst series of policies in the history of humanity.
Think about it, how many conscious decisions to engage in ethnic cleansing have been made in recorded history? Most colonial settler states are happy just to enslave and/or oppress the locals (see Israel), but we went one step further and decided to get rid of them.
Your refusal to accept this based on absolutely nothing but hopes and dreams is more than laughable, it's downright horrible.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
joffa corfe
PREMIERS 2010
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
|
|
|
|
|
Pi 
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Australia signed UNHCHR in 1951,
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
| Quote: |
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
|
Its quite simple to go and tick the boxes as to what defines genocide, the language is fairly unambiguous.
Does history fit with any thing in Article 2(E)? Unfortunately it does, both before and after 1951.
_________________
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well said Zakal and I understand where you're coming from David.
Ethnic cleansing isn't just the domain of colonsists Omar. How many African nations, post colonial governments leaving, decended into tribal or ethnic cleansing?
With the Aboriginal Stolen generation, it was the mixed blood kids who were taken. Not all by any stretch, but some.
Was that considered at the time to be in the best interest of the children? Most likely.
Does that make it right? No, but it explains if not excuses.
Was it an attampt at genocide? No. Because the race would survive, although with diluted bloodlines. If they wanted to exterminate a race, they would have taken all children and killed them.
David raises one interesting question about Race.
When does race differentiate from culture?
Why is a child who is half aboriginal and half anglo saxon just considered Aboriginal?
Why is a child of mixed ancestry who is 1/8 Aboriginal just considered Aboriginal? Why is their Aboriginal ancestry more important than their scottish, chinese, greek, english etc?
Who decides which part of a childs heritage is more important? Is raising a child with 1/8th Aboriginal blood as an Aboriginal denying them access to the other 7/8ths of their cultural heritage?
Being Jewish isn't a racial thing, it's a religious thing. People can convert to judaism. Similarly, a person with no Aboriginal blood can legally become Aboriginal (granted, not easily or quickly but it can be done).
Is "Aboriginality" becoming more of a cultural/religious thing than a racial thing?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Dr Pie
Dr Pie
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
I still stand by my original point, however. To equate Australia's stolen generations with the genocides of Rwanda and Nazi Germany is, to say the least, horribly inappropriate. |
David, you are confusing two separate crimes, genocide and mass murder. Genocide is the attempt to destroy another race, either because you believe that they are inferior or a threat or because you want their land, or both. Mass murder is killing hundreds of people. Very often one crime involves the other, as in the actions of the Nazis, or the Hutu attacks on The Tutsis, but it doesn't have to.
Suharto's murder of a million Indonesians was mass murder, but it wasn't genocide. Suharto was Indonesian himself and he wasn't trying to destroy a race he was encouraging the mass murder of "communists" and other political opponents. The same applies to Pol Pot, whose regime is believed to have killed 2 million Khmers at a time when the total Cambodian population was about 7 million. It was Khmers killing Khmers so it clearly wasn't genocide, but it was the worst mass murder since Stalin and Hitler!
On the other hand the attempt by the Tasmanian Colonial Government to destroy the indigenous Tasmanians was attempted Genocide and the last "full-blood" Tasmanian died in 1876. They probably only killed a few hundred Tasmanians, there were only a few thousand when the Europeans first invaded, but there have been no full descended Tasmanians for more than 130 years and that clearly is genocide!
Why is genocide appalling even without the mass murder that usually accompanies it. Apart from anything else because it suggests that some human beings' lives are less valuable than those of others and that it is acceptable for one race to be killed so another race can live in their place. The classic genocidal statement, which you can find in fifty years of Hollywood movies is "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Hollywood didn't even seem to find anything wrong with this till the 1960s.
A O Neville and a lot of early Australians (some of whom were very well meaning missionaries) really believed that Aborigines were an inferior race, doomed to die out and be replaced by the more vigorous and educated British race. They believed that forced asssimilation of "half-castes" was simply helping the procedure. Mind you, less well meaning 19th Century Australians and colonial Police helped the procedure by engaging in massacres. But even the well meaning people were still engaging in a racist project to permanently destroy another culture.
_________________
Born and raised in Black and White |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
'Smooth the pillow of a dying race'. If you care to look David, there is plenty of historical documentation showing clearly the widespread belief that the Aboriginal race was a 'dying race' and that official government policy was to aid in the dying out. This belief, essentially based on Social Darwinism, was widespread even as late as the 1950s. You and others may find it uncomfortable but this fits clearly with the formal UN definition of genocide. The attached journal article examines this issue and is quite accessible.
If you are genuinely interested RUSSELL McGREGOR's book 'Imagined Destinies: Aboriginal Australians and the Doomed Race Theory, 1880-1939', deals with the issue extensively although I've only read a few extracts. |
|
|
|
|
Dr Pie
Dr Pie
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
Being Jewish isn't a racial thing, it's a religious thing. People can convert to judaism. Similarly, a person with no Aboriginal blood can legally become Aboriginal (granted, not easily or quickly but it can be done).
Is "Aboriginality" becoming more of a cultural/religious thing than a racial thing? |
Actually No, Stui, being Jewish isn't just a religious thing, if it was Hitler would only have killed religious Jews. In fact Hitler attempted to kill all Jews including people who had not practised any religion for two generations and even Jews who had converted to Christianity. Many rabbis try to argue that the only real Jews are those who follow the Jewish religion, but that ignores the presence of clearly defineable Jewish culture. I am prepared to accept a definition of Jews as a Religious/Cultural/Ethnic group rather than a Race but to define Jews purely by religion is as innaccurate as saying that a person can't be Irish unless they are a practising Catholic!
_________________
Born and raised in Black and White |
|
|
|
|
joffa corfe
PREMIERS 2010
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Well said Zakal and I understand where you're coming from David.
Ethnic cleansing isn't just the domain of colonsists Omar. How many African nations, post colonial governments leaving, decended into tribal or ethnic cleansing?
With the Aboriginal Stolen generation, it was the mixed blood kids who were taken. Not all by any stretch, but some.
Was that considered at the time to be in the best interest of the children? Most likely.
Does that make it right? No, but it explains if not excuses.
Was it an attampt at genocide? No. Because the race would survive, although with diluted bloodlines. If they wanted to exterminate a race, they would have taken all children and killed them.
David raises one interesting question about Race.
When does race differentiate from culture?
Why is a child who is half aboriginal and half anglo saxon just considered Aboriginal?
Why is a child of mixed ancestry who is 1/8 Aboriginal just considered Aboriginal? Why is their Aboriginal ancestry more important than their scottish, chinese, greek, english etc?
Who decides which part of a childs heritage is more important? Is raising a child with 1/8th Aboriginal blood as an Aboriginal denying them access to the other 7/8ths of their cultural heritage?
Being Jewish isn't a racial thing, it's a religious thing. People can convert to judaism. Similarly, a person with no Aboriginal blood can legally become Aboriginal (granted, not easily or quickly but it can be done).
Is "Aboriginality" becoming more of a cultural/religious thing than a racial thing? |
The Genocide occured in Tasmania it was a well executed cull!
_________________
Football is Greatness
http://youtu.be/tJwoKbPOsQE |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tess wrote: | | Hilter also tried to exterminate all the gays well. Do we need a special Gay state and extra payouts for gays because of that? |
Who, aside from a small number of marginalised indigenous leaders, is suggesting forming a separate state for Aboriginals Tess? Rudd has also rules out establishing a compensation fund.
By the way, the German Parliament formally apologized for Germany's treatment of gays under the Nazis in 1999. Many gay lobby groups have also called for compensation payouts for victims of this period. Are you suggesting they should not be entitled to compensation?
Would you be so firmly against an apology if the state had removed children from their parents because they were gay or lesbian instead of Aboriginal, or if formal government attempts had been made to 'breed out' gays and lesbians? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | | David wrote: |
I still stand by my original point, however. To equate Australia's stolen generations with the genocides of Rwanda and Nazi Germany is, to say the least, horribly inappropriate. |
David, you are confusing two separate crimes, genocide and mass murder. |
Not at all.
From my last post:
| David wrote: | | Feel free to disagree, but I can't help but feel that the real tragedy of Auschwitz was not the possible extinction of the Jewish race, but the fact that so many innocent people were killed for no other crime than their ethnic descent. That is the real monstrosity. |
You stated that the stolen generation was as terrible as the genocides of Rwanda and Nazi Germany. However, as we've now established, there was a significant difference. The former was (possibly) an act of attempted genocide. The latter were cases of genocide combined with mass murder. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.
| Dr Pie wrote: | | On the other hand the attempt by the Tasmanian Colonial Government to destroy the indigenous Tasmanians was attempted Genocide and the last "full-blood" Tasmanian died in 1876. They probably only killed a few hundred Tasmanians, there were only a few thousand when the Europeans first invaded, but there have been no full descended Tasmanians for more than 130 years and that clearly is genocide! |
Interesting tangent to go on, but still related to the discussion: would the murder of the last remaining Tasmanian Aborigine have been a greater crime than the murder of anyone else? Technically, that would be an act of genocide, and yet I would like to see a solid argument as to why exactly it would be a greater crime. And don't just say "because it's genocide" 
| Dr Pie wrote: | | Why is genocide appalling even without the mass murder that usually accompanies it. Apart from anything else because it suggests that some human beings' lives are less valuable than those of others and that it is acceptable for one race to be killed so another race can live in their place. The classic genocidal statement, which you can find in fifty years of Hollywood movies is "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Hollywood didn't even seem to find anything wrong with this till the 1960s. |
I think it's a bit more complicated than this. What you describe is pretty much classical racism - the belief in the innate superiority (or inferiority) of races. That racism doesn't require the accompaniment of acts of genocide to be appalling in its own right - so this doesn't really answer the question.
| Dr Pie wrote: | | A O Neville and a lot of early Australians (some of whom were very well meaning missionaries) really believed that Aborigines were an inferior race, doomed to die out and be replaced by the more vigorous and educated British race. They believed that forced assimilation of "half-castes" was simply helping the procedure. Mind you, less well meaning 19th Century Australians and colonial Police helped the procedure by engaging in massacres. But even the well meaning people were still engaging in a racist project to permanently destroy another culture. |
I'm certainly not under any delusions about the beliefs of the time. The second sentence is the one I have been somewhat skeptical about - if they thought the Aborigines were going to die out naturally, why the need to help the process along? Was this truly the only motivation behind the stolen generation, or was it more complicated than this?
| nomadjack wrote: | 'Smooth the pillow of a dying race'. If you care to look David, there is plenty of historical documentation showing clearly the widespread belief that the Aboriginal race was a 'dying race' and that official government policy was to aid in the dying out. This belief, essentially based on Social Darwinism, was widespread even as late as the 1950s. You and others may find it uncomfortable but this fits clearly with the formal UN definition of genocide. The attached journal article examines this issue and is quite accessible.
If you are genuinely interested RUSSELL McGREGOR's book 'Imagined Destinies: Aboriginal Australians and the Doomed Race Theory, 1880-1939', deals with the issue extensively although I've only read a few extracts. |
Thanks for the link nomad, I've downloaded it and will give it more of a read at a later time.
The fact is, I don't really disagree with anything you've written, except in regards to my above stated skepticism over the need for a government policy to assist in what they already thought was a natural process. I have no doubt that there were other reasons for these actions, not least of them being a (considered at the time) act of charity towards the half-caste children. Research, I suppose, would support or disprove this view (and I am expecting to find some amount in the attached article, hopefully).
Just on the last point, about genocide - my argument has never been that the stolen generations did not fit under some definition of the word 'genocide'. My argument is that, by calling it by such a word, many people (deliberately or otherwise) do so to draw parallels between Australia and Nazi Germany and/or other brutal acts of genocide.
The logical proposition seems to be this:
1) The stolen generation was an act of genocide.
2) The mass murders of Rwanda and Nazi Germany were acts of genocide.
(c) Therefore, the stolen generation was on par with the mass murders of Rwanda and Nazi Germany (and, implicitly, Australia's history is as shameful as those countries').
I am simply trying to point out the flaws in this proposition.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
joffa corfe
PREMIERS 2010
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Dr Pie wrote: | | David wrote: |
I still stand by my original point, however. To equate Australia's stolen generations with the genocides of Rwanda and Nazi Germany is, to say the least, horribly inappropriate. |
David, you are confusing two separate crimes, genocide and mass murder. |
Not at all.
From my last post:
| David wrote: | | Feel free to disagree, but I can't help but feel that the real tragedy of Auschwitz was not the possible extinction of the Jewish race, but the fact that so many innocent people were killed for no other crime than their ethnic descent. That is the real monstrosity. |
You stated that the stolen generation was as terrible as the genocides of Rwanda and Nazi Germany. However, as we've now established, there was a significant difference. The former was (possibly) an act of attempted genocide. The latter were cases of genocide combined with mass murder. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.
| Dr Pie wrote: | | On the other hand the attempt by the Tasmanian Colonial Government to destroy the indigenous Tasmanians was attempted Genocide and the last "full-blood" Tasmanian died in 1876. They probably only killed a few hundred Tasmanians, there were only a few thousand when the Europeans first invaded, but there have been no full descended Tasmanians for more than 130 years and that clearly is genocide! |
Interesting tangent to go on, but still related to the discussion: would the murder of the last remaining Tasmanian Aborigine have been a greater crime than the murder of anyone else? Technically, that would be an act of genocide, and yet I would like to see a solid argument as to why exactly it would be a greater crime. And don't just say "because it's genocide"
| Dr Pie wrote: | | Why is genocide appalling even without the mass murder that usually accompanies it. Apart from anything else because it suggests that some human beings' lives are less valuable than those of others and that it is acceptable for one race to be killed so another race can live in their place. The classic genocidal statement, which you can find in fifty years of Hollywood movies is "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Hollywood didn't even seem to find anything wrong with this till the 1960s. |
I think it's a bit more complicated than this. What you describe is pretty much classical racism - the belief in the innate superiority (or inferiority) of races. That racism doesn't require the accompaniment of acts of genocide to be appalling in its own right - so this doesn't really answer the question.
| Dr Pie wrote: | | A O Neville and a lot of early Australians (some of whom were very well meaning missionaries) really believed that Aborigines were an inferior race, doomed to die out and be replaced by the more vigorous and educated British race. They believed that forced assimilation of "half-castes" was simply helping the procedure. Mind you, less well meaning 19th Century Australians and colonial Police helped the procedure by engaging in massacres. But even the well meaning people were still engaging in a racist project to permanently destroy another culture. |
I'm certainly not under any delusions about the beliefs of the time. The second sentence is the one I have been somewhat skeptical about - if they thought the Aborigines were going to die out naturally, why the need to help the process along? Was this truly the only motivation behind the stolen generation, or was it more complicated than this?
| nomadjack wrote: | 'Smooth the pillow of a dying race'. If you care to look David, there is plenty of historical documentation showing clearly the widespread belief that the Aboriginal race was a 'dying race' and that official government policy was to aid in the dying out. This belief, essentially based on Social Darwinism, was widespread even as late as the 1950s. You and others may find it uncomfortable but this fits clearly with the formal UN definition of genocide. The attached journal article examines this issue and is quite accessible.
If you are genuinely interested RUSSELL McGREGOR's book 'Imagined Destinies: Aboriginal Australians and the Doomed Race Theory, 1880-1939', deals with the issue extensively although I've only read a few extracts. |
Thanks for the link nomad, I've downloaded it and will give it more of a read at a later time.
The fact is, I don't really disagree with anything you've written, except in regards to my above stated skepticism over the need for a government policy to assist in what they already thought was a natural process. I have no doubt that there were other reasons for these actions, not least of them being a (considered at the time) act of charity towards the half-caste children. Research, I suppose, would support or disprove this view (and I am expecting to find some amount in the attached article, hopefully).
Just on the last point, about genocide - my argument has never been that the stolen generations did not fit under some definition of the word 'genocide'. My argument is that, by calling it by such a word, many people (deliberately or otherwise) do so to draw parallels between Australia and Nazi Germany and/or other brutal acts of genocide.
The logical proposition seems to be this:
1) The stolen generation was an act of genocide.
2) The mass murders of Rwanda and Nazi Germany were acts of genocide.
(c) Therefore, the stolen generation was on par with the mass murders of Rwanda and Nazi Germany (and, implicitly, Australia's history is as shameful as those countries').
I am simply trying to point out the flaws in this proposition. |
Im feeling sorry for you David, To suggest we're saying that the stolen generation was an act of genocide shows how low your prepared to go to try and win your petty one sided argument.
The act of removing indigenous children from their homes was not an act of genocide rather it was the white man believing he has full control over the blacks. That view is very much alive today with your rantings. All the world over the black population is very much considered to be the second class citizen. Would the aids crisis and lack of care and much needed medication from the rest of the world be the same if the African population was white ?
The blatant murder and removal of the Tasmanian aboriginal was genocide in the truest meaning. And on that basis our history is very much on par with world war two concentration camps.
Our past towards the indigenous is no different to the sad days of American history when the common view was that the negro was nothing more than a retarded chicken water melon munching n-igger.
Our country David has erred greatly in it's past dealings with Indigenous people. This is evident mate with your refusal to acknowledge and apologise. But im pleased to advise you David the majority of Australians believe it's time to say sorry and move on, we'll move on and leave you to pity and mourn the death of the white supremacist movement in Australia.
_________________
Football is Greatness
http://youtu.be/tJwoKbPOsQE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
