Isolated Tribe Found In Brazil - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-31-2008, 03:17 PM   #16
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I think that limited contact via intermediaries or employing knowledge about similar tribes to approach in a very passive and non-aggressive fashion and then explaining the situation to leaders would be approaching appropriate. A sustained and reciprocal long term engagement would be the desirable outcome. To formulate such an approach I would call in the anthropologists and ethicists.

I don't feel that keeping people cut off from the rest of the world simply to preserve their way of life is in and of itself a good and just thing, they should have a choice in the matter.
I don't necessarily disagree, but it's seldom a straightforward matter of, Just call in some anthropologists to manage the engagement and all should go well. Brazil does have more 'uncontacted' tribes than any other country, but they're still a tiny proportion of its indigenous peoples overall, and that assignment of 'uncontacted' status is based on a diagnosis of 'voluntary isolation'--i.e., government anthropologists believe solid grounds exist to assume the tribe in question is actively striving to avoid contact, based on some combination of information gleaned from other local tribes who are 'in contact' (with both the 'uncontacted' tribe and the government...and 'uncontacted' tribes are in fact often splinter groups of known tribes, who broke off specifically over disagreements about contact); the nature of the 'uncontacted' tribe's response to past chance encounters with Westerners (loggers, anthropologists, freelance explorers, oil drillers etc.); the location of the tribe's settlements, as tracked through flyovers (do they settle close to their water supply/boat landing, make a large clearing for themselves, and stay put for long periods, as is usual? or do they make a point of wedging their settlements into tight spots away from rivers/creeks and decamping frequently in response to movements of other groups, particularly Westerners, in the area?). If you look at the Brazilian government's Indian agency's report on these photos (FUNAI; these are the people who actually took the pictures), it sounds as though FUNAI has in fact been tracking this tribe, as well as 3 other 'uncontacted' tribes in the region, for 20 years now. So it certainly wasn't news to them that these folks were out there, though these may (or may not) be their first clear photos of them.

Additionally, the threat of disease (to indigenous peoples) remains a huge ethical issue when the prospect of initiating contact arises, and that has to be weighed against any medical benefits they may or may not derive from contact. The Matis, a tribe who live not too far to the north of this 'newly discovered' group, initiated contact themselves in the late '70s through a network of stations FUNAI maintains in tribal regions, only to see more than a third of their numbers die from flu and other 'minor' diseases inevitably acquired through contact with Westerners. FUNAI also has a noble policy for its own field workers of 'morrer se precisa for, matar nunca' ("Die if need be, never kill"), which prevents the trust-eroding violent confrontations often seen between loggers, poachers, miners, oil drillers etc. and natives, but which also places its own people at great risk in the early stages of contact with a tribe; that too must be weighed into the ethical considerations, as some of their field anthropologists have been killed in contact attempts before. And while it shouldn't be treated as an inevitability, the fact is that most of Brazil's indigenous peoples, like most surviving indigenous peoples elsewhere, are in the main very poor, socially and politically marginalized, and have inferior access to education and healthcare--assimilation is always a challenge, and good results for the tribe in question should they pursue it can't be taken for granted.

That's not to say there aren't situations where the risks of leaving a tribe alone and settling for attempts to protect them from nearby resource exploitation outweigh the risks of contact, and this latest 'uncontacted' group's situation may turn out to be one of those--with Peru encouraging logging and large-scale drilling by a French oil company just across the border, it may be inevitable that the worst effects of unsought contact will eventualize anyway. But it's not a decision to be made lightly nor is it a simple question of abstract principle ('Well, hey, let's at least show them a little bit of what modernity has to offer, then let them make the choice').
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
But what do you do if they are flat-out uninterested in even limited contact? It reminds me of one of the most mysterious of the uncontacted tribes, the Sentinelese of Sentinel Island in the Indian Ocean. They have treated every attempt to contact them with utmost hostility and they have no interest in engaging with us. It also doesn't help that their language is completely undecipherable, even to neighboring tribes on other islands.
The Sentinelese were precisely who I had in mind earlier in asking how violent responses to contact attempts should be handled--they are certainly living proof that some 'uncontacted' peoples are well aware of who else is out there, well aware that some of their neighbors have superior technology to theirs, but are vehemently disinterested in contact nonetheless.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 05-31-2008, 05:42 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Slipstream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,474
Local Time: 01:09 AM
I wonder what they thought of the strange, big and shiny noisy bird flying around.
__________________

__________________
Slipstream is offline  
Old 05-31-2008, 09:53 PM   #18
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:09 AM
There's every reason to assume they've seen low-flying small Cessnas and helicopters many times; both FUNAI and the various resource extraction companies use them frequently, and it's not difficult with those types of aircraft to see that there are people inside, particularly when they're hanging out the window filming you or your settlements.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 05-31-2008, 10:24 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 04:09 AM
But who's to say that these tribes people knew that there were human beings in the aircraft?

Let's say they never saw a small plane before. If they recognized human beings, they probably saw them like the Incas saw the Spaniards - they thought the Conquistadors and the horses were the same being. Also, I saw on the Travel Channel I believe, about anthropologists exploring a tribe in Papua New Guinea. When the tribesmen encountered the cameraman, the way they reacted reminded me of the Incas. They probably thought the camera and the person were also one being!

So, that was probably how these tribes people saw the people in the aircraft, hanging out with their cameras.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 05-31-2008, 11:39 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
~BrightestStar~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gettin' hot in a photobooth....livin it up in Ikeaville
Posts: 35,735
Local Time: 04:09 AM
I saw this the other day and I was fascinated, although I knew such groups existed in a number of different areas, it's still hard to imagine that in this day and age there are people on this planet that have managed to remain isolated.

And while the whole contact thing is a tricky issue, I respect that efforts are being made to at least respect them and provide them with the opportunity to continue their way of life by making attempts to protect the land they live on and such.

Out of curiosity however, are there less noble motivations for trying to protect/isolate this land?
__________________
~BrightestStar~ is offline  
Old 06-01-2008, 05:07 AM   #21
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
If they recognized human beings, they probably saw them like the Incas saw the Spaniards - they thought the Conquistadors and the horses were the same being. Also, I saw on the Travel Channel I believe, about anthropologists exploring a tribe in Papua New Guinea. When the tribesmen encountered the cameraman, the way they reacted reminded me of the Incas. They probably thought the camera and the person were also one being!
In fact it's questionable whether the Incas, or any other Mesoamericans conquered by the Spanish, ever believed that; the historical sources for that claim are sparse and contradictory. There's one early conquistador's account (Relacion del Primer Descubrimiento de la Costa y Mar del Sur; author and date unknown) and one slightly later Spanish historian's account (Garcilaso de la Vega's Comentarios Reales de los Incas del Peru, 1617) which passingly attribute the Incas' terror at the sight of warhorses in action to that belief; on the other hand, the account of Titu Cusi, the next-to-last native Inca ruler and nephew of the last sovereign Inca emperor (Relacion de la Conquista de Peru y hechos del Inca Manco, 1570) states that his people initially took the conquistadors to be 'sons of god' because they 'rode on enormous animals that had feet of silver,' but mentions no confusion on the Incas' part as to whether the horses might be physically one with their riders. Similarly, the conquistador Bernal Diaz del Castillo states in his Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España (late 16th cen.) that the Chontal Maya of Tabasco fled Cortes' horsemen on the battlefield because they perceived horse and rider as one terrible animal; while on the other hand, the mid-16th cen. Florentine Codex (written in Nahuatl) relates that Montezuma's messengers described the advancing conquistadors to him as 'riding on roof-high deer' but, again, doesn't suggest any confusion on the Aztecs' part as to whether said 'deer' might be one with their riders. So, basically, you have two conquistadors' accounts plus one later Spanish historian's account supporting the claim, then two native accounts contradicting it...take your pick.

More to the point, though, it's really not sound thinking to assume that just because some particular 'uncontacted' people at some particular place and time misinterpreted some object in some particular way, that you can therefore ascribe the same misinterpretation to whichever other 'uncontacted' people and object you like. Sure, a random 'uncontacted' tribe spotting a cameraman leaning out of a plane overhead might perceive him as one with the camera (and/or the plane, for that matter)--but it's just as likely that they'd perceive the camera as a weapon, or that it simply wouldn't 'register' with them as noteworthily different from any other strange 'adornments' he looks to have, or that they'd notice it immediately and wonder, 'What the heck is that thing for?'...or really, any number of impossible-to-predict responses. It's the (mutual) unpredictability of responses to various aspects of such encounters that makes them risky in the first place--especially when, as is usually the case, there's no common tongue or even gestural language uniting the two parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~BrightestStar~ View Post
Out of curiosity however, are there less noble motivations for trying to protect/isolate this land?
What kind of motivations did you have in mind? You could of course make the case (and many have) that these are foolishly large tracts of land to place off-limits to development, resource exploitation and tourism simply to protect the lifestyle of what's really a very small number of people, that this reflects wildly misguided romanticization of indigenous peoples etc. etc. But other than that, it's hard to think of what the 'less noble motivations' might be. Certainly the parties making and implementing this decision (FUNAI and the Brazilian government) aren't going to profit financially from closing off these lands; quite the contrary.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-01-2008, 06:29 AM   #22
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:09 AM
Some interesting bits from an excellent article in Smithsonian Magazine a few years back about FUNAI's experiences with a splinter group of the Korubo (Dslala), an otherwise 'uncontacted' tribe living in another protected area, the Javari Valley.
Quote:
...The dream began to come true 42 years ago, when Possuelo became a sertanista, or “backlands expert”—drawn, he says, “by my wish to lead expeditions to remote Indians.” A dying breed today, the sertanistas are peculiar to Brazil, Indian trackers charged by the government with finding tribes in hard to reach interior lands. Most sertanistas count themselves lucky to have made “first contact”—a successful initial nonviolent encounter between a tribe and the outside world—with one or two Indian tribes, but Possuelo has made first contact with no fewer than seven. He’s also identified 22 sites where uncontacted Indians live, apparently still unaware of the larger world around them except for the rare skirmish with a Brazilian logger or fisherman who sneaks into their sanctuary. At least four of these uncontacted tribes are in the Javari Valley. “I’ve spent months at a time in the jungle on expeditions to make first contact with a tribe, and I’ve been attacked many, many times,” he says. “Colleagues have fallen at my feet, pierced by Indian arrows.” Since the 1970s, in fact, 120 FUNAI workers have been killed in the Amazon jungles.
..............................................................................
At the time the Portuguese explorer Pedro Cabral strode ashore in AD 1500 to claim Brazil’s coast and vast inland for his king, perhaps as many as ten million Indians lived in the rain forests and deltas of the world’s second longest river. During the following centuries, sertanistas led white settlers into the wilderness to seize Indian lands and enslave and kill countless tribespeople. Hundreds of tribes were wiped out as rubber tappers, gold miners, loggers, cattle ranchers and fishermen swarmed over the pristine jungles. And millions of Indians died from strange new diseases, like the flu and measles, for which they had no immunity.

When he first became a sertanista, Possuelo himself was seduced by the thrill of the dangerous chase, leading hundreds of search parties into Indian territory—no longer to kill the Natives, but to bring them out of their traditional ways and into Western civilization (while opening up their lands, of course, to outside ownership). By the early 1980s, though, he had concluded that the clash of cultures was destroying the tribes. Like Australia’s Aborigines and Alaska’s Inuit, the Indians of the Amazon Basin were drawn to the fringes of the towns that sprang up in their territory, where they fell prey to alcoholism, disease, prostitution and the destruction of their cultural identity. Now, only an estimated 350,000 Amazon Indians remain, more than half in or near towns. “They’ve largely lost their tribal ways,” Possuelo says. The cultural survival of isolated tribes like the Korubo, he adds, depends on “our protecting them from the outside world.”
..............................................................................
For decades, violent clashes have punctuated the longrunning frontier war between the isolated Indian tribes and “whites”—the name that Brazilian Indians and non-Indians alike use to describe non-Indians, even though in multiracial Brazil many of them are black or of mixed race—seeking to profit from the rain forests. More than 40 whites have been massacred in the Javari Valley, and whites have shot dead hundreds of Indians over the past century.
..............................................................................
The semi-nomadic clan moves between four or five widely dispersed huts as their maize and manioc crops come into season, and it had taken Possuelo four lengthy expeditions over several months to catch up to them the first time. “I wanted to leave them alone,” he says, “but loggers and fishermen had located them and were trying to wipe them out. So I stepped in to protect them.”

They weren’t particularly grateful. Ten months later, after intermittent contact with Possuelo and other FUNAI fieldworkers, the clan’s most powerful warrior, Ta’van, killed an experienced FUNAI sertanista, Possuelo’s close friend Raimundo Batista Magalhaes, crushing his skull with a war club. The clan fled into the jungle, returning to the maloca only after several months.
................................................................................
“The Korubo eat very well, with very little fat or sugar,” says Magna. “Fish, wild pig, monkeys, birds and plenty of fruit, manioc and maize. They work hard and have a healthier diet than most Brazilians, so they have long lives and very good skin.” Apart from battle wounds, the most serious illness they suffer is malaria, brought to the Amazon by outsiders long ago.
.................................................................................
In this jungle haunted by nightmarish predators, animal and human, the Korubo surely must also need some form of religion or spiritual practice to feed their souls as well as their bellies. But at the maloca I’ve seen no religious carvings, no rain forest altars the Korubo might use to pray for successful hunts or other godly gifts. Back at the base that night, as Jumi sweeps a powerful searchlight back and forth across the river looking for intruders from downriver, Magna tells me that in the two years she’s tended to clan members, she’s never seen any evidence of their spiritual practice or beliefs. But we still know too little about them to be sure.

The mysteries are likely to remain. Possuelo refuses to allow anthropologists to observe the clan members firsthand—because, he says, it’s too dangerous to live among them. And one day, perhaps soon, the clan will melt back into the deep jungle to rejoin a larger Korubo group. Maya and her clan broke away a decade ago, fleeing toward the river after warriors fought over her. But the clan numbers just 23 people, and some of the children are approaching puberty. “They’ve told me they’ll have to go back to the main group one day to get husbands and wives for the young ones,” says Magna. “Once that happens, we won’t see them again.” Because the larger group, which Possuelo estimates to be about 150 people, lives deep enough in the jungle’s exclusion zone that settlers pose no threat, he’s never tried to make contact with it.
................................................................................
Is Sydney Possuelo right? Is he doing the isolated tribes of Brazil any favors by keeping them bottled up as premodern curiosities? Is ignorance really bliss? Or should Brazil’s government throw open the doors of the 21st century to them, bringing them medical care, modern technology and education? Before I left Tabatinga to visit the Korubo, the local Pentecostal church’s Pastor Antonio, whose stirring sermons attract hundreds of the local Ticuna Indians, took Possuelo to task. “Jesus said, ‘Go to the world and bring the Gospel to all peoples,’ ” Pastor Antonio told me. “The government has no right to stop us from entering the Javari Valley and saving the Indians’ souls.”

His view is echoed by many church leaders across Brazil. The resources of the exclusion zones are coveted by people with more worldly concerns, as well, and not just by entrepreneurs salivating over the timber and mineral resources, which are worth billions of dollars. Two years ago more than 5000 armed men from the country’s landless workers movement marched into a tribal exclusion zone southeast of the Javari Valley, demanding to be given the land and sparking FUNAI officials to fear that they would massacre the Indians. FUNAI forced their retreat by threatening to call in the military.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-01-2008, 06:12 PM   #23
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 09:09 AM
It boils down to whether a culture should be preserved or not...people should not be forced to abandon their ways, but there is an inevitability to cultural change and cultural dominance. We are forever trying to make people change or influence them, the best intentions can be harmful, but a culture does not have a right to continuous existence. That said the force for change should probably come from within the society, which would be for the best.

Not sure i'm being very clear on my thoughts here
__________________
LJT is offline  
Old 06-01-2008, 10:16 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Man, I'm glad I read Yollands response before I said I agreed with A Wanderer. Some very good points, there.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-01-2008, 10:24 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:09 PM
They do compliment each other, one significantly more than the other.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-01-2008, 11:06 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJT View Post
It boils down to whether a culture should be preserved or not...people should not be forced to abandon their ways, but there is an inevitability to cultural change and cultural dominance. We are forever trying to make people change or influence them, the best intentions can be harmful, but a culture does not have a right to continuous existence. That said the force for change should probably come from within the society, which would be for the best.

Not sure i'm being very clear on my thoughts here
No, you were very clear. A society has to decide if they want to change or not, not be forced to. Sometimes I think it is totally wrong for a society to change its cultural, because that would mean that the world is getting closer to a single world culture (at least, that is how I see it), where everyone dresses the same, eats the same food (McDonald's anyone?), listens to the same music, etc. But if the people want to be part of a single world cultural, then it is part of human evolution, I suppose.

Now I'm hoping I made sense!
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 06-01-2008, 11:10 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:09 PM
Cosmopolitanism does not imply monoculture
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-02-2008, 10:17 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
A society has to decide if they want to change or not, not be forced to.

Something the California Supreme Court has apparently forgot.


Anyway, no-one is immune from the Nanny State. If they smoke tobacco, eat meat, wear animal skins or spank their children; it's only civilized they be forced to listen to the same haranguing, pay the same "sin" taxes and face the same threats of prohibition the rest of the globe is subjected to.
For their own good of coarse.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-02-2008, 10:34 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:09 PM
That being the California in which a majority agree with gay rights?

In a liberal democracy individuals should be entitled to equal rights up to and including marriage, for all practical purposes the debate is over and it is reactionary bigotry holding up the march of gay rights.

But that has nothing to do with the ethics of making first contact with a tribe of people isolated from the rest of humanity, for which Yolland raised the most important points of harm (disease, exploitation and cultural genocide) instead of mere idealisation of a hunter-gatherer society.

I don't know if there is an adequate approach to engagement with new people, given the massive death caused by settlers throughout time especially to native populations I think that some refrain is well justified. Guarantees of land rights as a precondition to contact would also be important (although if we start playing that game the very land I am on right now belongs to somebody else that isn't getting rent money).

I am not a fan of primitivism, I don't feel that scratching out a living in nature is an ideal state for man and I feel that apart from having to do more work the modern world trumps so much of history. Romanticism towards tribal societies just seems like bullshit, of course it isn't that they must be incorporated into some civilization it is just that to hold that lifestyle up as an ideal that is somehow superior in it's simplicity feels wrong to me. Being exposed to the collective knowledge of mankind, communicating with people all over the world and enjoying living standards that even allow us to die of heart disease and cancer is just wonderful, I don't know why people living in this luxury seem to crave the brutal and short life within a tribal society.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-02-2008, 09:20 PM   #30
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:09 AM
It's just very difficult to fully wrap one's mind around the ethical terrain here, much of which is in a sense unprecedented. The overwhelming majority of the world's surviving indigenous peoples underwent 'first contact,' and the initial generations of travail following it, prior to the mid-20th century and the end of the last(?) colonial era, at which time a very different ethos towards 'primitive' peoples prevailed. Only 150 years ago, and certainly prior to that, it would've been the rare government, explorer, or missionary who'd have felt much guilt or been given much pause at the thought of their own implication in the familiar 'side effects' of such radical transitions--friends and family dying in one fell swoop from epidemic disease; becoming easy prey for people who have their own agendas for you or your land, and who know how to play the game much better than you do; traumatic alienation from both your newfound 'neighbors' and your own elders as the old worldview falls away--at times slowly and subtly, at times rapidly and drastically--while meanwhile you haven't quite found your place in the new one yet. (And those are just the near-term downsides; that's not counting the kinds of structural inequalities and simmering resentments that often persist for many generations.) 'In the old days' these were most often chalked up as necessary evils of progress towards a superior and more fulfilling lifestyle for all, but for better and for worse, those days are basically over, and I can certainly understand why an anthropologist or sertanista living by the decidely postcolonial motto of "Die if need be, never kill" might feel considerable anguish at contemplating the near-term suffering that's likely to result from increasing contact; the reality that what s/he can do to 'prepare' any people for that is ultimately quite limited; the unnervingly high chance that s/he or a colleague will die violently over some 'misunderstanding' during the effort...I can understand why they might start to wonder, Is this really worth it? Might it not be better to just wait for the day when they show up on their own at our clinics and research stations, ready and willing to get to know us? Which is worse, the inevitable condescension of keeping them out of the loop until they decide to jump the fence, or the inevitable callousness of inviting them to sink or swim in waters it'll take them generations to master? These are just very tough questions to grapple with, and in some ways I think the 'cultural survival' aspect, while admittedly intertwined with the rest of it, is actually quite secondary--at least in the sense that it could be taken to imply ready analogy to situations that aren't really very analogous at all, like whether the British government should fund Welsh-medium schools and programming, or whether (US) Native Americans should be allowed to chew peyote during spiritual practices when no one else can. Important as those questions are, you're talking there about situations where--to put it bluntly--the worst of the damage is long since done, dispossession and political integration (mostly on The Other Guy's terms) are centuries-old 'facts on the ground,' and what we're really looking at are disputes over the 'rights of cultural minorities,' a quite different phenomenon entailing a quite different frame of reference for mutually negotiating the relationships between the two parties.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com