Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Why Europeans failed to settle Tropical Africa |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 5> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||||||
Mayra 
Janissary 
Joined: 15-Jan-2007 Location: Nigeria/Brasil Online Status: Offline Posts: 29 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Why Europeans failed to settle Tropical AfricaPosted: 04-Jun-2009 at 22:56 |
|||||||||
|
I found an interesting section starting on page 203 of a book I own called "Nigeria, Our Latest Protectorate" written in 1900 by Charles Henry Robinson. The book mainly deals with the Hausa and their lands and customs and squarely points the finger at them as slave raiders, traders, etc., If this excerpt is any indication, I would say muslim slave raiders from within did quite a good job at decimating local populations. Forget germs in africa, people were just trying to not be kidnapped or butchered and this was in 1900 mind you!!!. Here is an excerpt:
"There are one or two points to which I should like to refer in conclusion. The first step towards the development of Nigeria must be the abolition of slave-raiding. As long as the majority of the people live in constant fear lest their town or village should be destroyed on the coming night, and they themselves carried off as slaves, we cannot expect any real improvement in the general condition of the country. The marvel is that, despite the existence of this desolating evil, they should have been able to attain so high a degree of civilization. Slaves are used in Nigeria first as porters, and secondly as the currency of the country. During the wet season beasts of burden can only be employed to a limited extent, and when they are available, slaves are often used by preference.
Again, the absence of any proper coinage or substitute for coinage makes it almost impossible to transact business on a large scale, except by using slaves as the medium of exchange. This is especially the case where tribute has to be paid by one king to another. A sort of feudal system prevails throughout most of West Africa, the smaller places paying tribute to the larger. The King of Kano, for example, has two hundred kings who pay tribute to him, the greater part of which is paid in slaves. According to Captain Binger, Samory, whose country lies to the west of Nigeria, pays eight hundred slaves per month for the gunpowder which he receives. Assuming the Hausa-speaking population of Nigeria to be fifteen millions, five millions at the very least of these are slaves. There are probably fifty thousand slaves in Kano itself. On one occasion, after spending thirty-six hours in or on the edge of a slave-raider's camp, and having with difficulty escaped from his clutches, I had to march for four days through country which he had recently raided. In the course of this sixty-mile march, during which we were nearly starved, we passed through village after village destitute alike of inhabitants and of food, the former having been massacred or carried off as slaves by our late host. No one who has not seen a town or village that has recently suffered from such a raid can realize the horror which the constant repetition of such sights from day to day serves to produce. In the presence of this diabolical cruelty and waste of human life, one could not but feel impatient for the day when the forcible intervention of a European power should rid the earth of such crimes. It is quite certain that slave raiding will never die a natural death. History affords no single instance in which Mohammedans have voluntarily abandoned the slave trade, and Nigeria is certainly not likely to afford such an example....."
interesting.....
Edited by Mayra - 04-Jun-2009 at 23:03 |
||||||||||
|
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
" I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive". Albert Einstein |
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-May-2009 at 04:57 |
|||||||||
|
yes, there was a large mortality. Just remember that Pocahontas died of a contagious disease, but not before she was mother. But I wouldn't bet those plagues eliminated the 90% of the population. Perhaps the 20% or even 40%. A large number, indeed, but that could recover in one single generation.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King 
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-May-2009 at 04:21 |
|||||||||
I'm not sure about that assumption. If Aborigines and native Americans had similar resistance to European disease (debatable), they we could say that disease did make a big difference. What small pox did to the Aborigines in the Sydney Basin is well documented. Whole tribes were literally wiped out, lying dead and unburied, the few survivors fled and spread the disease to other groups. The Europeans were bewildered by its speed and strength. Its quite possible that Aboriginies that had no contact with white settlers for another 50 years were devastated by small pox in the 1790s. The disease travelled much faster than the settlers did. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2009 at 14:02 |
|||||||||
Well, all that you said matches reality. Except for a single factor, the Spanish population wasn't that small. Around the 17th century the mestizo and Spanish population was around 700.000 people already and by Independence it was 1 million.
....
400.000 is a small figure. I bet the actual number is higher. However, the largest majorities in the Americas were mestizo since the beginning. Many Spaniards lived in harems with theirs native wives and concubines, at the purest Muslim Moor style
 It is amazing that historians who analize the figure of the decrease of Native population don't notice a curious pattern. While the Native population decreased the Mestizo population was skyrocketing. However, there are records about what was going on. A priest in Cuba once recorded that "natives were getting extinct because Spaniards took Indian women for them". Even more, some expert in precolumbian history described that in early colonization couples of Amerindians usually had one or two children at most, while mixed couples of Spaniards and Indians had dozens of kids. So that reproductive difference certainly played a role as well; perhaps more important than we think.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2009 at 13:46 |
|||||||||
|
The problem is that those numbers are only speculation. It is true smallpox and other diseases affected native americans very much, but in what degree is not known. For instance, when the Black Plague attacked Europe in the 14th century, it took 1/3 of the population away! It took two generations for Europe to recover to its original levels.
We know for historical events that there was a great mortality in the Americas at that time. But if you see the chronicles, there wasn't the masive panic that you saw in Europe in the 14th century!
Yes, we know that Pocahontas died of fever, but only after having kids and paying a visit to London! If the diseases were so strong, probably Indians would have rushed away from white people at soon as they saw them!
The impact of disease should be understood better as an important increase in morbility. However, thinking that natives died immediately when an European breath close to them is just an urban myth.
See Africa today, attacked by HIV in large scale. You can see life expectancy droping to 40 years, and a high mortality. Nowhere you see a decrease in population!
So, it is better take those speculations of masive redaction of population because germs with easy.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
calvo
General 
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2009 at 12:49 |
|||||||||
|
If the census sad 2 millions in 1600 that was around the same population living there at contact.
I very much doubt that.
The most conservative estimates put the pre-contact population of America (the entire continent) at around 9-10 million.
Obviously, much of the population would be concentrate in few agricultural regions, while the rest of the continent was sparsely populated by hunter-gatherers. The Spanish conquered most of these regions (Andean, Mesoamerica etc); and let's say that these regions held more than half of all the native American population: let's say 6 million.
From 6 million to 2 million in one century, it is a reduction of 2/3.
Imagine, if any of the countries today lost 2/3 of it's population in less than 100 years; there'd by plenty of empty land, abandoned towns and cities.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Ikki
Chieftain 
Guanarteme Joined: 31-Dec-2004 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 1378 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2009 at 12:44 |
|||||||||
This is another interesting matter. We must watch several points:
1. Native factors: great territory, sparcely populated, without a centralized authority, without urban net, warlike peoples.
2. Spanish: few forces, few resources, generally little interest in the land, uncapability to deal with the problem according with previous experiences.
This mean, when spaniards arrived to Chile they found an interesting land to settle, but not so much like other regions of the continent. In the richest and better organized states the task was simple: to take or destroy the central authority=the emperor, to take or destroy the urban centers. Without that authority and without those cities, the task in Chile for a small spanish army was impossible. It can be said that the "undeveloped" stage of mapuche people played in favour of they, and Mapuche was a warlike people with experience fighting "regular" armies, not the the mass of peaceful peasants ruled by a small cast of warriors-religious people like other civilizations, so here play what you have said.
Because the quick conquest was impossible and the territory of natives was disrupted, the war followed for many time because non of the enemies was good in their position. And this allowed mapuches to adapt to european warfare. In several moments spanish showed great interest in finish the war, but the most decissive victories over the indigenous didn't mean anything than deffensive position and consolidation of territory.
It's a good hypothesis, but surelly uncorrect. The migration of spaniards to América in 16-17th centuries were mainly people of middle-high jobs, they were basically urban migrants who went there to work in urban centers, althought many of they worked in the country, they were always the upper side of the worker system; althought the migration of the 17th is not as well kown as the 16th century. The migration of low rank workers and with a pure rural objective with a purpose of stablish in unpopulated lands didn't begin until 1700. The greatest stimations for this migration are around 400.000 in those two centuries and probably that date is excessive.
I can't provide you with a net source but you can look this info in any general book about history of Hispanoamérica.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2009 at 22:55 |
|||||||||
|
And also in Africa there are these types of problems: |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Mayra
Janissary
Joined: 15-Jan-2007 Location: Nigeria/Brasil Online Status: Offline Posts: 29 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2009 at 19:48 |
|||||||||
|
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
" I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive". Albert Einstein |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2009 at 19:25 |
|||||||||
That's a fallacy, I am afraid. There is a huge myth about the impressive decline of the population in the Americas according to disease. So much so that the people that calculate populations before contact are usually called "number crunchers"... sort of magicians that take out figures and rabbits out of the hat.
If the census sad 2 millions in 1600 that was around the same population living there at contact.
The fact that Europe is smaller than the Americas in size doesn't mean the last should have the same continent than the first at all. If that were the case, and the Americas had the same density than Europe, it should have circa 20 billion people today to match the 700 millions of Europe.
Never forget that Mexico circa 1900 had no more than 20 million people! and probably no more than 10 millions at Independence in 1810.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2009 at 16:25 |
|||||||||
Things might have been wildly different had the Boers even tried to settle in tropical Africa.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
calvo
General
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2009 at 16:06 |
|||||||||
|
Ikki,
You're right that the Spanish conquered Mesoamerica due to its large population and the large number of potential serfs that could work for the crown; but something unexpected happened: the decimation of the population due to diseases.
By the year 1600, a census in New Spain yielded a population of 2 million, and the population of the Iberian Peninsula at the time was 8 million!
Considering how much bigger New Spain was compared to the Iberian peninsula, with a population a quarter of its size; many of the dispossesed peasants of the Iberian peninsula saw a great opportunity to emigrate to the new colonies and establish a new life.
I don't have any statistics as to the number of Spaniards who emigrated over the centuries, but if the numbers peaked in the 1600s-1700s, it could well be because of the emtpy land.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2009 at 15:09 |
|||||||||
Absolutely. There was a matter of cost/benefit. And nobody wanted to invade territories with armies and settlers dying of contaguious deseases. Had the Boers survived better in tropical Africa, perhaps the things would had been different.
However, Australia, the Pacific and specially the Americas represent the 40% of the lands of the planet. Just settling those were more than enough to capture all the excess of population of the West, and all the effort that that enterprise demanded.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2009 at 14:09 |
|||||||||
|
I must agree with a factor we aren't taking into account: density of population. Africa it was more populated than the Americas by far, particularly in tropical regions. To put an army of 10.000 in Africa seemed to be easy. To do the same in the Americas happened only in some particular cases. I bet that even Mexico and Peru were less densily populated than the tropical regions of Africa. In the case of North America, Amazons and particularly Patagonia, people were very few.
The argument about the iron spears Africans used doesn't convince me. A more convincing argument is that tropical Africans were agriculturalists that also have cattle and goats, and lived a tribal but sedentary life, so they had larger populations. In most of the Americas, except Peru and Mexico, population densities were low and agriculture was complemented with hunting: no cattle existed in the Americas before Europeans arrived.
Now, why falled the Aztec and Inca empire? Simply because they were new societies with a few centuries old, that were still too multicultural to have a sense of identity. Most people lived there under a tyrany of "foreigners". Aztec and Incas were just dominant tribes appart from the large majority of people that had other etnicities and were forced into theirs dominium. For many of them, the change from Aztec or Incas to Spaniards was a non-issue and don't care. Even so, the Aztec empire surrender only after disease and casualities had reduced the aztec warriors ranks to almost zero.
Another interesting point is that, perhaps, Mapuches resisted the Spanish invasion because they had already stopped the Incas a century earlier! When the Spanish and theirs Inca allied invaded Chile, they were already tranned to resist.
Curious, I never though of that before.
Edited by pinguin - 29-May-2009 at 14:19 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme Joined: 31-Dec-2004 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 1378 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2009 at 12:32 |
|||||||||
Who have said the opposite? The key point is that africans did too.
This happened because similar reasons of the resistance of Mapuches in comparation with aztecs for example. In the case of Mapuches, and long exposition to european traditions become an advantage in military terms. As i have said, this battle happened in a more advanced stage of contact between these two peoples, as mapuches Kongo warriors could adapt to european warfare. But, opposite to this example, in most of Africa the first contact wasn't succesful for the europeans and they musted to stay in the coast in front or under the power of the powerful natives, what allowed to natives to adapt to military innovations of europeans. I'll expand this point with Calvo, but take as examples of this the opposition to portuguese advance in the western coast, in the Battle of Lusaka or in several Zimbabwe campaigns.
Was defeated by both, germs and native opposition. When portuguese advanced into the country they musted to change the route because indigenous attacks, at all, they couldn't achieve nothing and natives never hand downs to portuguese. If you think this is the only example, you are wrong -------- Calvo
Exactly the opposite in the first sentence, specially in the spanish example. More populated was the area, more attractive was for europeans. Central México and the northern-central Andean region was the most populated regions of the continents and was the most prized conquest of the spanish, this is because they were attracted by the idea of dominion over great population of serfs in feuds and cheap labour forces in mines, a very medieval way of thinking. Several african regions offered exactly that, but as you said, the story was different.
Agree in most of this paragraph but not in the end. Disease, and political-military opposition, but not exaclty by climate. The tropical climate of África was very good for some very profitable products, as sugar, take the example i commented of Sao Tomé. The activity, with this i answer to the previous pinguin argument, was limited to coastal regions with some exceptions (Zimbabwe, Kongo). But basically because native opposition, have you thinking guys that coastal regions was the most unhealthy regions??; higher territories wasn't so bad for the illness. The problem was that the first echelon in the european expansion was blocked by human opposition: portuguese suffered this in most of the territories, but not only they. In the 18th century, the French began their expansion in Senegal. The tried to go up by the Senegal river, building fortresss which could protect their advance. But, when they faced the opposition of inner peoples, which were very dangerous in military terms they hade a problem (cavalry, fireweapons, steel), their allieds didn't agree to following supporting their advance. So the French musted to leave the fortress they had built and come back As you see this is a very complex problem, if the equation wasn't good for europeans, it wasn't only because limited products, illness and climate. You must put natives in the balance. Edited by Ikki - 29-May-2009 at 12:37 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
calvo
General
Joined: 20-May-2007 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 846 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2009 at 10:19 |
|||||||||
|
I'm no expert in the historic detailes of the conquest of America and Africa, but my verdict is the following:
The conquest of America was made easy by the diseases. The Spaniards would certainly not have defeated the Aztecs if there wasn't a Small-pox outbreak during the seige of Tetnochitlan. In most of the rest of the continent the epidemics travelled faster than the colonists; in that native populations were already being decimated by diseases when the Europeans met them. The Inca Empire was the prime example. Europeans also had interests in settling in America as much of it was a vast extension of sparsely-populated, fertile land with mild climate. Basically, the economic gains in occupying America were far greater than their costs. Africa was a different story. North Africa, after all, should be classified as part of the Eurasian world rather than the "African world"; and sub-saharan Africa had contact with Eurasians dating back to at least 2500 years; when Berber tribes penetrated as far south as Mali. The Romans also organized an expedition that located the source of the Nile in Lake Victoria. Therefore directly or indirectly, Africans had developed resistance to most Eurasian diseases and many were up-to-date with Eurasian advancements. Few Eurasian empires had any interest in settling in or even occupying Africa because of the diseases and the hostile climate; the costs would probably far outweigh the gains. Therefore, most activity was limited to the coast line and a few trade routes. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2009 at 05:44 |
|||||||||
First: Mapuches were highly organized. And nobody helped them to defend themselves. They simply did.
Second: At the first of your battles, the Dutch helped the Kongo with guns and canons! With that kind of help, anyone could defeat Europeans.
Third: In the invasion of Zimbabwe the Portuguese were defeated by germs; not steel.
Edited by pinguin - 29-May-2009 at 05:49 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme Joined: 31-Dec-2004 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 1378 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-May-2009 at 22:51 |
|||||||||
Isn't evident for us pinguin.
In comparation with european and mediterranean wars, it was a minor war.
My imagination? There were plenty regions very well populated, at least equally or better than the best amerindian regions (Niger valley for example). Until 1530 the african gold was the main source of precious metals for Europe and never lost importance because the southern gold from Zimbabwe was crucial for the trade with asiatic countries.
You are very badly informated pinguin, in the 16-17th century portuguese dominion over this region was restricted to a few coastal feitorías, sometimes they could expand their influence like the example of Angola-Kongo, other times in Zimbabwe they were only annoying neighbours expelled from their areas when the african king wanted.
What did i say about N.A??
In the saharan frontier moors could take slaves in raids, but the usual way as in the eastern coast was a colaboration with native blacks. This trade didn't begin with they, but at least since roman times nubian slaves were present in Egypt.
All in all, is a racist comment. You say "blacks" were... no, no, some blacks acted in a way, others in different way. To say something general about the black race, and in a negative sense it's clearly a racist comment.
 Two examplesIn 1572 an expedition of 1000 men under the leadership of Francisco Barreto tried to conquer the kingdom of Zimbabwe. 650 of these were european portuguese organized in four companies one with 200 arquebusiers, plus 6 artillery pieces and we must add black auxiliaries.
When they knew that the mines of gold was in hands of rebels, they changed the plans and tried to conquer that region. As usual, they recognize very few casualties, but after two battles against 10000 native warriors, which portuguese fought in square covering the fire weapons in the centre, they couldn't break the native resistence and changed the route. Decimated to 450 men by illnes, lack of resources and native harrasment, they musted retreat to the starting point.
--------
In a more advanced stage, portuguese fought in the middle of a civil war in the Kongo Kingdom. The Battle of Kitombo is very well known, finished in the crushing defeat of the 500 portuguese basically musketers and their allieds, and halted the portuguese expansion in Angola for more than a century
---
Only two examples in a long relation.
A sentence typical from eurocentric people you hate when they talk about America.
First Niger empires wasn't so primitive like you say for example. And secondly the military abilities of less developed people as Fulbe was very dangerous for europeans. They hadn't cavalry, but used to fight in a very advanced way: they placed first a line of spearmen, secondly a line of archers which were capable of fire very quickly high quantities of poisoned arrows, and in a third line the men of the main chiefs with swords and maces or axes. All these weaponry of iron. In the water, they used to fight with great and fast boats very goods in the the shallow waters of the west coast, and were capable of repulse the europeans attacks because their great movility and concentrated numbers. Hardly you will see this in America in the first stage of contact.
You talk about the Battle of Blood River, this is 1838, you know? By this time the european advantage had grown very much and zulúes, opposite to other african peoples, hadn't been in contact with europeans. And you know how dangerous they were after a time of mutual knowledge.
No it isn't. They have similar problems in enviroment than other subsharan regions, they were exposed to northern influence but this tratidion was changed under native influences. Ethiopia and Niger valley civilizations were in a similar historical development situation, in the middle of mediterranean-middle eastern traditions and native traditions, but this was common in Africa and only a fraction of the continent was free of this situation so if we restrict so much the "subsaharan África" this thread is a no sense.
No, No and NO. The first reason why europeans went donw along the african coast was the searching of gold. Until 1530 the gold from Elmina was very important for europeans and then as i have explained the gold of Zimbabwe was crucial for the asian trade. The quantities were smaller than the american ones after the conquest of the great amerindian empires, but the gold mines attracted they laterly as the expedition of Barroso show. The triangle commerce is only a generalization for the late stage of atlantic economy dominated by europeans. Slavery was the main african "richness" but wasn't the only one, other goods as gold, ivory, precious woods and many more were traded.
In the 16th century, illness didn't prevent a full development of sugar in the island of Sao Tomé in the Guinean Gulf. Until the increase of Brazilian production after 1600 this island was the main sugar source for europeans, why do you think portuguese couldn't stablish their plantations in the continent? Probably the reason was the unsafe position of europeans there. In 1589, the Ndongo kingdom totally crushed the portuguese in the Battle of Lukala and pushed they in the limits of their fortified positions in the coast. Under this pressure was impossible to do anything.
Once and for all, military-polytical resistance was as important as illness for a very late european conquest of the continent. Edited by Ikki - 28-May-2009 at 23:05 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-May-2009 at 02:21 |
|||||||||
Very much, indeed. Iberians allied with certain natives and crashed others. That's the way the conquest was done. Without the help of natives the Europeans had never conquest the Americas, and did so because people lived in tyranic regimes in both Inca and Aztec empires. In the first there was a civil war in course and an ilegitimate Inca; In the second the Aztecs dominated theirs subject by terror alone. Spaniards were smart enough to use those centrifugal forces in theirs favor.
Yes, that's true. It is interesting the parallel of the Boer adventure in South Africa and the conquest of the Americas, intermarriage included.
Absolutely
Because the Spanish conquestors were soldiers and adventurers who wanted to become noble upperclass people, or form theirs own kingdoms. They were "enterpreneurs" usually of humble origins. Rich people didn't want to risk theirs lives the way these adventurer did, because they didn't have a reason to do so. Conquestadors didn't have anything to lose.
That's true. But we accept the fact we have both origins simultaneously. As citizens of our countries we love our lands and our ancient history as much as pure natives. As descendents of Iberians we feel a special love for the "motherland". It may seem contradictory, but it isn't. We aren't guilty of a bloody past we didn't choose.
As I said. The Aztecs dominated theirs subjects by terror. Many other groups didn't care with what happened with theirs former masters.
It may be so. The first quipus found comes from 3.000 years BC in Caral. So it wasn't a new invention at all when Incas started to use them. Edited by pinguin - 28-May-2009 at 02:30 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-May-2009 at 02:09 |
|||||||||
Yes, you got a point in there, and it is very interesting. Songhai was "modern" in terms of military tactics, and I agree. The Amerindian resistance got modernized after the first disasters, but they copied European tactics when they did so. Don't forget that when Custer was crashed, natives had rifles. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 5> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.090 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.090 seconds.
