You can try to make it look like you don't "see" color all you want lib, but saying that Asian is too diverse to categorize is like bringing up the trite exceptional case of transvestites to claim that one can't generalize that women have breasts.
Like I said, Mar, you simply don't seem to know much about Asia.
I'd wager you think the folks there are just one big amorphous yellow horde. At least that's what your posts seem to indicate.
Asians, in fact, are MUCH more diverse than Europeans. For any body measurement you can name, they show as wide a range of differences as any other group you care to name.
And your metaphor regarding women simply shows you haven't the slightest clue as to how human biology and genetics really work. There is a GENETIC basis to being female: it's called having two X chromosomes. There is NO gene or set of genes which can be called "Asian".
Sorry, son. It just ain't there.
Time to bone up on your basic human biology, Mar, because you're being left behind and George Wush doesn't like that. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
For every phenotype or physical trait, there is a genotype-a dominant, co-dominant, or recessive gene? These are usually but not 100% tied to geographic lineages..what do you mean raybones? well If you trace a person's blood lines far enough back they will either originate at an asian, caucasian, or negroid disposition-which have vast but limited mixes
due to relocation, integration, etc. people can display different degrees of a genetic code-just because things aren't black and white doesn't mean (I suppose) there isn't an order to them..Racism is a terrible illusory device like any other form of discrimination-Christ to the rescue!
a. colored skin has a lower occurence of
skin cancer than uncolored skin
b. blacks have colored skin
c. black people have a lower occurence of
skin cancer than non-blacks
racism??!
The name Asia=of or relating to the original tribes of Asia and Asia Minor
Raybones, sorry, but that's a very uninformed view of human biodiversity. Continental sized areas, such as those you mention, do not have "limited" genepools. Sorry. In those areas, almost ALL of the human genotype can be found and what CAN'T isn't found in any other continental sized area but in tiny little isolated populations scattered here and there.
And it's a simple scientific fact that ALL those genes originate in Africa and at a point that is relatively close in our collective past as well. Want to talk origins? Africa's where they all are. We do not have any mutations that were caused outside Africa, only environmental conditions that favor the EXPRESSION of this or that already-extant trait. We have not been outside of Africa enough time for significant mutations to develop.
God's truth, dude. Check it out.
With regards to your colored skin theory, it only works if you automatically ascribe "blackness" to (aside from Africans and their direct descendants) a whole range of peoples who are as "African" as the Irish. To wit: Australian Aborigines, certain ethnic groups in the Indian sub-continent, certain Native American groups, certain Polynesian groups, etc. etc.
So your adjective "black" doesn't seem to describe much as its applicable to a range of people who have had little to no historical, cultural, political, economic or biological ties. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
Good try-Mac
However, if our appearances are totally random than why would there be such small percentages of whites with blond hair AND brown eyes, or asians with blond hair AND blue eyes? The argument that I produced was based on an essay I read in 'Health Today' about how skin pigmentation has a statistically lower rate of skin cancer-if you think about what I've said-RACE is a shared set of characteristics by people with common lineages-you said all genes originated in Africa, I have no problem with that..but if migration or nature separated our species than survival would be orchestrated by the environment or natural selection-therefore phenomes (which can't exist without genomes) can be traced to distinct regions of the world and then again back to Africa. A person from Iceland wouldn't usually look like a person from Venezuela (?) without massively integrating the existing gene pool-if human biodiversity has no regional signifigance than you are right, somebody has me hook, line, and sinker!
black (not literally) but as in the presence of color, the goal of that statement was merely to show how melanin is a defense against skin disease-you really can't infer that the author (myself) was trying to make any other conclusion (?)
Ray, who's claiming that human appearances are totally random? Not me. Human genetic traits follow patterned clines. That has been quite conclusively proven. But said traits are not...
1) Tied up in one big package and transmitted uniformly together.
2) Not limited to one or another continent.
3) Do not produce homogenous physical groups at a continental level (e.g. "Asians").
Your argument seems to postulate only two possible choices: either complete randomness of traits or the existence of discrete, easily identified human races. Because human biodiversity IS patterned, you take this as proof that race - defined as a discrete, homogenous set of characteristics that are more or less homogenously shared by entire populations at a continental level - MUST exist. But that's simply a logical falacy. Clinactic distribution theory very neatly accounts for the patterns in human bio-diversity without having to postulate the existence of races. Meanwhile, race theory, in its turn, violates easily observable facts, to wit, that the physical types which exist on any continental sized land mass are HUGELY diverse in terms of traits and biology.
Race theory only seems logical to you because you have very little notion of how diverse humanity actually is.
With regards to your skin cancer and pigmentation info, I'm a bit confused as to why you think that has anything at all to do with race. Sure, darker skin protects from UV better than lighter skin. Why that is proof that discrete, homogenous and stable human biological subspecies exist is beyond me, however.
Just so you have an idea as to where I'm coming from, I'm an anthro who has done a hell of a lot of work on physical anthropology. You seem to have never looked into what race theory has actually been, historically speaking, so you seem to believe that any proof of patterned human biodiversity is ipso facto proof of race's existence.
It'd be nice if things were that simple in the world of human biology, but they aren't. And last time I looked, "Health Today" was a pop health magazine, not a cutting edge scientific jornal. If you're interested in race, let me suggest you do some deeper reading about it and don't just make your opinions up based on poorly understood pop science. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
I think we are making this more complicated than necessary, race exists because of the similarity of phenotypes?? let's suppose the land mass of the planet was one, if my skin, hair, etc. was susceptible to heat, sun-I would probably head to a northern part of this single continent most likely..why? because there would be a greater chance of my survival or my future offspring's ? 'Homeostasis' would probably be my primary objective in life, and I might believe everybody else's also..Those people with similar traits would congregate by their physical adaptations, let's imagine a giant meteor hit the center of this continent and split it into east, west, north, south there is a chance the people in each region would share similar phenotypes, NOT because of a distinct gene pool but because of environmental selection,
It doesn't matter what 'Health Today' is as long as there info. has been scientifically supported, it seems you are trying to suggest this was racially motivated, and my intentions were primarily 'phenotypical'
Ray, look, I'm not trying to patronize you, but this shit is more complicated than you probably suspect and I've spent the last 8 years of my life studying it in a PhD level course with a physical anthropologist as my thesis coordinator. I'm telling you this because I'm not making this shit up, or saying what I'm saying because I read about it in a popular science magazine. I'm saying what I'm saying because I HAVE slogged through several very up-to-date genetics textbooks and an entire library on the history of race a scientific theory.
In other words, I have a very, very informed opinion on this topic. Based on that, I can say, with certainty, that you're making a lot of presumptions about race that are very common for laymen to make but which are simply, scientifically, PROVABLY wrong. This doesn't mean you're dumb: just uninformed. Most laymen are when it comes to race and magazines like Popular Health are in the business of pandering to laymen's perceptions, not challenging them. That's how they sell their magazine,
In the first place, race does not exist because of similarity of phenotypes. Race theory attempts to prove that similiar phenotypes can be grouped into subspecies units that are stable and relatively homogenous. But this doesn't occur in human biology. Just because you have relatively dark skin does not mean you have all the other biological traits people commonly associate with "blackness".
The definition of "species" presumes a biological unit that can interbreed among its members. The concept of "subspecies" - or race - presumes that there are reliably expressed traits grouped within this unit in a patterned and stable fashion, creating objectively observable and reliably describable sub-groups. This simply isn't the case with humans. What most people call "black" or "asian" clumps together biologically distinct groups that are so radically different from one another that if they were to occur in any other species, they would NOT be biologically considered as sub-species.
In other words, you have to really bend biology's rules of classification of sub-species based on similar phenotypes in order to get the races that most people talk about when they talk about human difference.
So why do people see this difference? Why do they perceive subspecies where none biologically exist?
Simple: history.
Westerners like yourself have a long history of seeing Asia as one big indistinct yellow mass. That prejudice is so strong that, when combined with a lack of real knowledge of how Asians are in fact physically diverse, it creates the illusion that there's this "yellow horde" of essentially similar people. Voilá: the perception of race is formed in your mind, if not in reality.
Let's look at white people: the range of traits and colors expressed by white people (hair that goes from black to brown to blonde to red; skin that goes from brown to milk to pink, which may be freckled or not, which may tan or burn; stature ranging from short to tall; etc.) is so huge that there's NO WAY this group would EVER be classified as a subspecies if it were to occur in any other species other than humanity. What makes them a "race" in most people's eyes is their common socio-historical background (many of them came out of more or less the same area of Earth at a given moment of time and conquered most of the planet) COMBINED with the fact that, as a rule, they are lighter in skin color than most of the peoples they colonized.
It is thus history and society which make race in our case. Biology on its own isn't enough to determine a human sub-species. "White" here is not an absolute trait, which it would have to be if we were using it to define subspecies in any other biological species: it is only a RELATIVE one which only makes sense in a given socio-historical background. Latin America, for example, is full of people who are as pale-skinned as any Northern European, but folks like you, following the "common sense" version of race consider us to be another race entirely: "latino" or "hispanic". Likewise, China has plenty of people who are as pale as any gwailo. Do they get called "white"? Nope. History dominates this game, not biology.
You are hung up on skin color, it seems. Why? Because historically that trait has been used to determine whether or not one was free or slave, "native" or "colonial". But biology does not use one physical trait to determine subspecies: it uses all of them. A whole RANGE of traits - hundreds - need to be expressed in a stable recurring pattern in order for a subspecies to be said to exist. So white skin - which is really just "generally lighter colored skin", if we want to be real - is not enough to make a subspecies on its own. This is PARTICULARLY the case when said trait is expressed all across the planet. Europeans are not the only group on earth to have light colored skin: certain Native American, Asian and even some African groups have skin colors that are as light or lighter than certain European groups.
Furthermore, "white" skin (which remember, is in fact a range of colors which go from tan to milk to pink) did not evolve in Europe. The genetic trait which causes it is common to several African mammals, including giraffes and zebras. It evolved IN AFRICA and it is part of our common human genetic heritage. It is not a mutation. It has been historically EXPRESSED whenever human beings have occupied extremely cloudy climes for several tens of thousands of years. This is why there are "white" people in Asia who are not the result of miscegenation with Africans.
Ah, you might ask, but what about Eskimos? They're dark, right?
Well, in the first place, believe it or not, the Inuit are relative newcomers to their habitat. Human beings didn't get over to the Americas until about 20k years ago, AFAIK. That's not enough time for a huge amount of biological differentiation to take place. But secondly, even so, differentiation HAS indeed taken place. As a general rule, Inuit are lighter in coloration than, say, the Native American populations of the Brazilian northeast who live in a badlands type environment near the equator and are thus MUCH darker in color. This occurs because the trait which causes light colored skin is part of ALL of humanity's genetic heritage - not just northern Europeans.
But if we follow your "common sense" view of race, all these people are one race: Indian.
And that's the real problem here: lighter skin only means "white" to you when it's coupled with European ancestry. When it's not, you just edit it out of your visual field. Once again, it is history and society which is creating the "white race" here and not any measurable, stable and exclusive set of genetic traits which biology is capable of grouping as a subspecies.
You seem to be chained to two fallacies in your thinking.
The first is what I call the "Garder of Eden" fallacy. It presumes that different types of people simply popped into existence in pure form at a given point of history. It is wrong because there is NO time in human history where Afrcia, say, was completely isolated from Europe. Genetic exchange has ALWAYS occurred among those two populations, albeit at a faster or slower rate. There never was any such animal as the "pure" African or "pure" European. Such a thing, in so much as it can be said to exist, is simply a statistical construct, not an actually occuring, observable, biologically verifiable creature.
The second fallacy is a lack of depth in your thinking of time.
Evolutionary, biological time is MUCH, MUCH deeper than human historical time. Even the new theories in evolution, which stipulate that under the correct conditions, biological drift can occur very rapidly, still stipulate hundreds of thousands of years for subspecies to differentiate enough from a common root to be considered as seperate. In biological and evolutionary terms, humanity itself was unified in Africa a mere eyeblink ago. We conquered the planet with lightening speed. Even that branch of humanity which was built from the smallest original population base and which has been the MOST isolated for the longest time - the aborigines of Australia - has repeatedly received injections of new human biological material over its history. It is still a very, very biologically diverse group which is nowhere near homogenous enough to be labeled as a subspecies.
All of this is good science, Ray. It's provable. It is not something we anthros and biologists came up with last Tuesday for political reasons or what have you. It is simply the best possible description of human biological diversity and patterning which we currently have, the one which best explains the facts which are to be encountered and observed in the world around us. To create another, one needs to take what we already know into consideration, not selectively ignore the facts that contradict one's pet theory, which is what the journalist writing for Popular Health seems to be doing.
Let me close this by detonating another commonly held misconception among laymen (particularly African American laymen): the stuff I'm saying above DOES NOT "prove" that race doesn't exist. What it DOES show is that race, as applied to humans, is created historically and socially, NOT BIOLOGICALLY. Neither does the above theory say "we are all exactly alike". In fact, it says the opposite: it says that human biodiversity, while patterned, is so chaotic that it CANNOT be provably shown to create stable, relatively homogenous subgroups, at least not at the level presumed by race theory. It says, in effect, that if such subgroups exist, there are hundreds - or better yet, thousands - of them and that they exist, such as they exist, on an extremely micro level and are highly unstable over time.
The idea that there are only 5 big, naturally occurring, biologically defined races has been thoroughly explored by biologists and anthros for 300 years now. It has been rejected simply because it does not jibe with reality as observed. Period. The last SERIOUS attempt to classify humans into races occurred about 40 years ago and they came up with some 576 races before finally dropping the project. It has been these unsuccessful attempts to discover race which provide the basis for race theory's rejection, not politics or "political correctness".
In other words, race exists, but it is a human construct, not a natural one. That, if you're a wise man, is all that needs to be said. It certainly doesn't belittle the importance of race to human development: it simply resituates it in history instead of in biology. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
This is a very interesting discussion, indeed. I have a question as far a human development goes: At what point, or what signs marked the turning point in human evolution? I understand the biological evolutionary theory, but what were the social signs and development patterns that changed the human animal. All I really hear are a bunch of years and assumptions when it comes to human evolution, but I haven't really seen or heard of any concrete timelines of humay development. And have these been proven or assumed based on scientific and biological information?
An excellent layman's book to rwad on precisely that topic, GJARROD is Adam Kuper's The Chosen Primate. It is widely available in bookstores and libraries and is a fast and absorbing read. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
I'll have to check that out. One of the things that has always puzzled me was how history seemed to contradict what science has been saying. Hisorically, humans have altered their external conditions to satisfy a need or desire. For example, humans felt the desire to fly so we build airplanes. We get cold, so we construct clothing and jackets. Physically, the people who lived in ancient egypt were in better shape than we are now, but we have a better understanding of disease and infection, which is one of the reasons that we are living longer. In that respect, our understanding of how the body works has evolve, so we alter the external enviornment of healthcare. I guess my question is; to what degree are we as humans evolving today?
Race theory attempts to prove that similiar phenotypes can be grouped into subspecies units that are stable and relatively homogenous
Quote:
The 'classification system' of race would not support evidence of a subspecies (that's just plain outlandish) or the complete uniformity of genes within a categorical unit of the system.
What would not be logical to me is for the existence of given trait to not be instrumental for an organism's survival..(barring defection, mutation, or disorder)
Of course race has a sociological component, our pools are more integrated now, and the term is often an assumption.. but as you go back historically the reason why people believed all physical appearances were homogenized is because the concentrations of these phenotypes were more regional-AND your (or the ones you believe are right) saying it was coincidence??
Sociologist say that people living thousands of years before us were more primitive ? why because they (generally) thought the physical world was the end all i.e. if its close to me good?-if its foreign bad?
Why? because of what they saw! natural and social sciences were limited to a smaller number of people ? basically you had massive polarization of society (that became along with adaptability) the beginning of race-Phenotypical relativity
ALL scienctific data evolves and there are always new theories even in anthro, history whatever..
the genetic code hasn't been broken? anthropology is not a Finite science as is no other
'white' is not a race by the way
I'd be willing to go out blinded that certain phenotypes i.e. elongated eyes, straight black silky hair have existed in majority and still exist in China for the past 3,000 years-I mean like 95%
GJARROD, the current theory is that with the development of language and sapience, humanity has by and large taken itself out of the evolutionary game which chains other animals. To an IMMENSE degree, we can now direct our evolution. Lamarck's theories on evolution, it turns out, are absolutely correct for us because language allows us to pass along our non-biological adaptations to following generations.
In other words, we are no longer tied to Darwin's track - at least not to the degree that other animals are.
Ray says:
Quote:
The 'classification system' of race would not support evidence of a subspecies (that's just plain outlandish) or the complete uniformity of genes within a categorical unit of the system.
Ray, "race" and "subspecies" are synonymous in biology. There are very clear-cut rules as to how to go about classifying subspecies or races. Humanity meets hardly any of these. This isn't "outlandish": it's how the classifying activities of biology works and has worked for the last two centuries. You can't propose one classification system for one animal and then turn around and propose another for a different animal, simply because it feels good.
Quote:
What would not be logical to me is for the existence of given trait to not be instrumental for an organism's survival..(barring defection, mutation, or disorder)
Actually, there are SEVERAL traits that organisms have that are not instrumental for their survival. The human appendix springs to mind. Organisms are NEVER completely adapted to their environment.
Quote:
Of course race has a sociological component, our pools are more integrated now, and the term is often an assumption.. but as you go back historically the reason why people believed all physical appearances were homogenized is because the concentrations of these phenotypes were more regional-AND your (or the ones you believe are right) saying it was coincidence??
Saying that human perceptions of race are historically and sociologically based is not at all saying that they are coincidental. Nor is it saying that human biology has no pattern to it at all. What I AM saying is that the patterns which we perceive are not qualifiable, using biology and genetics, as sub-species. They exist predominantly (not partially) due to historical and social concerns. When you say "black", for example, you probably mean someone with African ancestors in the last 500 years of their family tree. But there are PLENTY of people who are just as "black" who don't fit that view of "race". Australian aborigines and southern Indians spring immediately to mind. So what allows you to qualify "black" as "Africa" EXCEPT for history and society? If you go on purely biological traits, certain extra-African groups are more comparable with certain African groups than those self-same African groups are with other African groups. And this has ALWAYS been the case in human genetic history.
Quote:
Sociologist say that people living thousands of years before us were more primitive ?
Sorry, I have a bachelors in sociology and a PhD in Social anthropology and I can tell you for a fact that any sociologist making that assumption today would be nicely pilloried at any conference where he or she chose to annunciate that assumption. Sounds like you're making some assumptions about sociologists which just aren't true, Ray.
Quote:
natural and social sciences were limited to a smaller number of people ? basically you had massive polarization of society (that became along with adaptability) the beginning of race-Phenotypical relativity
It's hard to understand what you mean here, but I think you're trying to say that these physiological differences have ALWAYS been seen in the exact same way in which we see them now, by everyone, all over the world. That is simply, provably, not true. Europeans did not start getting hung up on skin color until the 16th century. When the Spainiards conquered the Canary Islands, for example, in the late medieval period, they didn't even mention the skin color of the islanders as it was considered to be completely irrelevant. The Romans placed Germans and Nubians on the same level - as ass-scratching, non-Roman barbarians. They certainly didn't feel any "natural" affinity to Germans because their skin color was lighter than the Nubians. Everything I've ever read indicates that the Romans, in fact, PREFERRED Africans to Germans as the former were generally considered to be more amicable to Roman rule. Certain native american groups in the Amazon today make no effective distinction between whites and blacks: both are categorized with the same word as "not us".
So while you're right to say that ethnocentric thinking and dividing up of humanity into "us" and "them" has ALWAYS existed, you're wrong to presume that it has always existed according to the ethnic categories which you happen to find significant. You are simply projecting your values onto other peoples and times that you apparently know little about.
Quote:
ALL scienctific data evolves and there are always new theories even in anthro, history whatever...
Correct. But science is a POSITIVE enterprise, requiring PROOF. One can never prove a negative, so one can never prove that human race "doesn't exist". In fact, one can never prove that the moon isn't made of green cheese. What science DOES DO is create theories that explain observable, provable facts. A theory is a BETTER theory to the degree that it explains MORE observable provable facts than any other. In this sense, race theory is a bad theory because it simply cannot account for human biodiversity with the degree of precision that clinactic theory achieves. Yes, science evolves. But that's no excuse to make the argument - as you seem to be doing - that any old theory is just as good as any other and that we have no rational way for accounting for data or discerning between better and worse theories, based upon observable data.
People have been trying to prove that human race exists as biological trait for over 200 years and in all that time, they've come up with hardly nothing at all. That's generally a good indication, when you're a scientist, that you're following a bad theory, ESPECIALLY if other theories exist which can explain what you're theory tries to explain AND can explain other observable phenomena that your theory simply can't account for. At that point, the rational scientist admits that his hypothesis has failed and he tries again with a new one. This is EXACTLY how the scientific method works, Ray.
Quote:
I'd be willing to go out blinded that certain phenotypes i.e. elongated eyes, straight black silky hair have existed in majority and still exist in China for the past 3,000 years-I mean like 95%
You'd lose your eyes. There's a HUGE diversity of biotypes in China. Once again, your lack of any substantive knowledge about that country is putting you in a bind where your prejudices rule your view of the world. You need to try to see the world OBJECTIVELY and not project your prejudices on it. When you do that, you might end up DAMNED suprised.
And let's take your Chinese example seriously: are you then claiming that the Chinese are a race? Because there are a lot of peoples out there who have those same characteristics you just described - black straight hair, folded eyes - that are not at all Chinese. Inuit, Lapps and certain Native American groups spring to mind. So where is the boundary of this "race", exactly? If we use those chartacteristics you just described, we'll find "Chinese" on every continent of Earth!
It's not enough to simply say a certain population shares certain biological characteristics to define it as a "race" or sub-species, Ray. You need to also show that these characteristics are exclusive - or pretty much so - to that population, that they are stable over time and that they form a discretely bound group. Straight black hair and slanted eyes hardly fit those prerequisites! _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
Once again you you are limiting your thinking to biological terms, there are such things as 'minorities' in every country of the world- and furthermore people's experiences are different based on how they are viewed i.e. cultural, physical background they are associated with..I could say to myself no I'm not African American, I'm mixed because I have light skin, but my total experiences or the how I'm received in this existence will not be the same as my friends with white skin, blond hair and blue eyes.. I admit that because that's the reality!, not the exact research..Some say that Germany b.s. about there's a 'master race' is nonsense, true enough..but take a closer look at how people of color are being projected or how prejudices toward members of the i.e. middle and far east nations are and tell me I'm uniformed about RACE, that's why biology and sociology are separate..Even in Brazil I'm sure some people feel disenfranchised by the color of their hair, skin, and/or eyes..I'm not suggesting that race is totally biological-btw-science says only 11-12% of the human brain is useful so just because our un-god like minds don't know all the functions of certain organs or tissues doesn't mean that 50-1000 yrs from now we won't..It's better to say 'that there is no known use for them' than 'they are useless' Also, Sociology doesn't key on exclusivity, it focuses on shared values, practices, and behavioral patterns
you know the 'no person is an island concept' which is the atom of this field.
Once again you you are limiting your thinking to biological terms, there are such things as 'minorities' in every country of the world- and furthermore people's experiences are different based on how they are viewed i.e. cultural, physical background they are associated with.
Ray, I most certainly AM NOT limiting my thinking to biological terms. As I said above, several times, race is a HISTORICAL and SOCIOLOGICAL construct, which is simply another way of saying what you just said. My point isn't and never has been that race doesn't exist: only that it doesn't exist in biological terms. It is something we make up. That, of course, doesn't make it unimportant.
So what's your point, exactly? Up until now, it seems to me, you've been arguing that there's actual proof for biological human race. Now you seem to be waving your hand and saying "Biology isn't important, anyhow, because people BELIEVE race exists".
Well yes, that's true and yes they do, but that wasn't your original point, was it?
So what exactly are you arguing here? That races exists because it's a historical and sociological construct? Agreed. But if that's the case, why are you wasting your time trying to prove that it's biologically and not sociologically determined?
My point and always has been that race doesn't exist in human biology but that it DOES exist as a social and historical construct and that this is tremendously important.
Didn't you get that?
I think you, like a ot of African Americans, get your knickers in a tizzy when you hear someone say that race doesn't exist as a biological construct because somehow you translate to mean that this person is saying that black people don't exist or that race is unimportant. But that is NOT AT ALL what people are saying in biology and anthropology. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
