Week 9, Semester 2 By Ying Wong, Heli Yoon, Caity Setter, Ellie Ryan, Alana Ticchi, Lizz Kuiper, Jessica Flatters This piece is a response to an article published by Jackson Willows in last week’s edition of De Minimis that challenged the utility and purpose of autonomous spaces in the Law School. Amidst the live debate, a few matters of importance must be confronted. The practical function of a ‘People of Colour’ lunch
Firstly, the article never addresses in depth what the practical function of a lunch would be, beyond an assertion that “they think they are correcting historical wrongs”. Every day, students of colour navigate a space that is overwhelmingly white - MLS. In fact, society at large reflects this whiteness. Think about the High Court bench, the eminent authors of our prescribed readings, and the composition of the faculty. Navigating this space can be exhausting at times; a slow, unrewarding, and seemingly endless trudge on the treadmill that is making others comfortable with our race. For people who feel this way, events like the People of Colour lunch create a space where our physical and cultural differences are accepted, and not thought of as the foremost defining feature of our identity. The article appears to take issue with the idea that an event should not be drawing a line on the very basis that POC are discriminated against. Sure, but rather than tackling any lofty goals of “correcting historical wrongs,” we would like to make clear that the lunch was simply an opportunity to congregate without having to be concerned about race, and to just eat some goddamn pizza. The “white/non-white” binary and the purpose of the lunch We acknowledge the argument that the use of the term “people of colour” bears an element that might, as was (kind of) pointed out in Jackson’s article, create an us-and-them dynamic; an “othering” that has the potential to be polarising. It may also be a term that casts a blanket over the multifaceted experiences of the different permutations of not-whiteness, and assumes that “colour” is what defines “culture” and life experience. Whatever the issue may be with the idea of a “white/non-white binary”, as canvassed by the article and subsequent comments, this cannot mean that a space should not be made for people who have collectively decided that they share a common interest in a common issue. It is undeniable that people who have experienced racism, or come from a migrant or non-English speaking background, have needs that differ from those of the general cohort. The ES&J LSS portfolio is vital to addressing such needs, as are the Queer and Women’s portfolios in addressing the needs of students who identify as Queer, or as women. And, if you’re not comfortable with identity politics, the Later Law Students’ Network is another fine example of a student society built on the premise of addressing the needs of a particular section of the cohort who have experiences not faced by the rest. Is the POC lunch really exclusionary? - Caitlin Setter If you saw me walking through the law school, you’d probably be surprised to know that I am Chinese. Due to my mixed Hungarian background, the predominantly white features of my physical makeup grant me a certain type of privilege. I don’t bear the same burdens imposed upon a lot of Asian-Australians, and I can’t claim to understand their experiences of subtle and structural racism. I don’t speak the language, as my mother was vehemently discouraged from learning Cantonese growing up while the White Australia Policy was in force, and I won’t pretend that I am immersed in the Chinese culture. It is for these reasons that I didn’t feel like the person of colour lunch spoke to me, or was an event that I needed to attend. And that’s okay. The key to these events is that, rather than being exclusionary, attendance is and ought to be self-nominated. It would be a stretch to assert, as alluded to by Jackson, that the lunch sought overtly to “exclude” white people. Let’s think of it as seeking to include anyone who, for any variety of reasons, and despite their physical appearance, feels that it speaks to their needs and experiences. The usefulness of white historical guilt “You are not guilty of anything committed by someone else in history merely because you share a race. Neither am I. Neither is anybody. Race-based guilt is morally regressive to the core and should be expunged from society.” Obviously. Many scholars have written about the stifling effect of guilt on any real change in our society. But no-one is suggesting that you, or that all white people, should be feeling guilty for the actions of their ancestors in order to effect change. The rejection of the existence of “reverse racism” isn’t premised on guilt-treatment. Rather, it is imperative that we all - and white people especially - recognise that the systems we operate under now were built on the back of those historic, colonial injustices, and that this continues to inform who benefits from that system today. It is only once you acknowledge this fact that you become capable of contemplating solutions. What next? Being well-educated makes it harder to immediately understand what it’s like to go through life without a good education; being someone in good health makes it harder to immediately understand what it’s like to go through life in ill health. Obviously, it’s harder to understand experiences of the world that you haven’t had yourself, because life is, necessarily, subjective. If there was one positive that came out of this whole shebang, it’s that the comments section opened up a forum for those with valid critiques of the lunch itself, particularly of the invitation process, to come forward and express those views. People on the wide spectrum of colours - and these are the voices that are important to hear - provided constructive criticisms. No doubt, these suggestions will help the ES&J portfolio identify what they can actively do to promote a less-divisive, more inclusive support network to promote equity. We would encourage anyone who sympathised with the views expressed in Jackson’s article to listen to (like, really listen to) the experiences of people of colour who think that the lunch is important. This is not to say that all people of colour think it is important, but listen to those who do. If you’re genuine about reaching a point where our experiences of life are not shaped by race, then we would posit that listening to people who don’t experience the world that way is probably the best place to start. If you do not identify as a person of colour and the past week’s discussion has created discomfort for you, we urge you to seize the opportunity to ask yourself why. Let’s make the 21st century a more empathetic place.
Dbs
18/9/2018 08:41:58 pm
Fantastic article!
Name (Required)
18/9/2018 08:50:55 pm
"Every day, students of colour navigate a space that is overwhelmingly white - MLS. In fact, society at large reflects this whiteness. Think about the High Court bench, the eminent authors of our prescribed readings, and the composition of the faculty. Navigating this space can be exhausting at times; a slow, unrewarding, and seemingly endless trudge on the treadmill that is making others comfortable with our race. For people who feel this way, events like the People of Colour lunch create a space where our physical and cultural differences are accepted, and not thought of as the foremost defining feature of our identity."
Brother in arms
18/9/2018 09:04:24 pm
Grab the tikki torches, we have a march to go to Brother.
You Sure About This?
19/9/2018 07:46:49 pm
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tiki%20Torch
You okay sweetie?
18/9/2018 09:16:06 pm
'Perhaps it would be equally fair to describe a walk through Melbourne's CBD, whose resident population is about 70% Asian, as a 'slow unrewarding endless trudge' for anyone who is not themselves Asian?'
Boris
18/9/2018 10:57:15 pm
This is called a mischaracterization of an argument.
Siane Richardson
18/9/2018 09:21:27 pm
Wow, there is so much wrong with this I do not know where to begin.
prefacing an argument with incredulity makes it more inherently convincing
18/9/2018 10:06:31 pm
"Australia is a multicultural society and all positions of leadership should reflect this diversity."
How reductive
18/9/2018 10:11:20 pm
I feel like I'm commenting rather than marching lockstep with racists and bigots I despise
Can X represent Y?
19/9/2018 07:57:56 am
"Can someone of race X not represent someone of Race Y?"
Me
19/9/2018 08:37:51 am
“And secondly, as an immigrant -- no, not everyone can represent my interests because they are uniquely coloured (oh fuck! I used the bad 'C' word!) by my experiences and cultural smorgasbord.”
CHAUVINIST SECTARIAN
19/9/2018 08:51:41 am
"why should the rest of US [emphasis added] indulge those impulses"
Me
19/9/2018 08:59:57 am
Of course. Is there something about the phrase ‘the rest of us’ that indicates it is limited to a particular sectarian group?
chauvinist sectarian
19/9/2018 09:08:02 am
Not necessarily! I just didn't want to imply anything in what you said -- clarification is all. I'm interested in talking about this (heckles and hackles down) in person because I see the points you make but don't fully understand them (and would like to). Coffee?
History happened
18/9/2018 09:23:36 pm
The real issue with your argument, as with Jackson's, is that it is completely detached from any kind of historical context.
Oppression Calculator
18/9/2018 09:35:44 pm
Again, social justice morons think they are smart enough to place all of humanity's rights and wrongs against each other for thousands of years into a neat oppression pyramid they can fit onto their sociology lecture slides whereby those above may be guilty of racism and those below may never be.
James Hogan
18/9/2018 09:43:16 pm
If you're dissatisfied with the slides, you could always try reading a book.
History happened
18/9/2018 10:01:16 pm
It's actually pretty simple. I can give you a lesson if you like. Often it's just a case of putting a bit of nuance into the conversation. Nuance and context, I know, are hard.
Be Careful
19/9/2018 05:04:37 am
@JAMES HOGAN
False equivalences
18/9/2018 09:31:28 pm
You seemed to neglect a key component in your misapplication of the quote to Asian people.
Look Morty, I turned myself into an anachronism
18/9/2018 10:23:52 pm
Is there actually a serious claim that white people at MLS are not comfortable with non white people at the law school and need the efforts of people of colour to make them feel comfortable? As in, in a country as diverse as Australia, in a city as diverse as Melbourne, and at a university as diverse as the University of Melbourne, a university with about 35% international students?
You have not been paying attention.
18/9/2018 10:31:23 pm
Yes; Yes; We never left a racist society.
CURIOUS
18/9/2018 11:33:08 pm
You have not been paying attention;
You have not been paying attention
19/9/2018 12:01:10 am
Curious - Gladly!
Samuel Johnson
19/9/2018 06:27:01 am
@YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION
See Also
19/9/2018 07:16:29 am
Scrotal: A screaming axolotl.
The social justice warrior has no clothes
19/9/2018 08:16:46 am
Why do you give a flying fuck about what members of the faculty look like? You’re literally the textbook definition of a racist.
I was not attentive
19/9/2018 09:29:23 am
@Samuel Johnson
Samuel Johnson Again
19/9/2018 11:36:44 am
Dude, I'm on your side. I was just getting bored with everyone slinging mud at each other.
Attention
19/9/2018 11:52:29 am
@Samuel Johnson
SAMUEL JOHNSON AGAIN AGAIN
19/9/2018 11:58:52 am
No hard feelings. :)
Name (re-kkk-uired)
18/9/2018 09:34:17 pm
tl;dr “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”
Oh come off it
18/9/2018 09:42:42 pm
Don't be ridiculous
Name (Not) Required
18/9/2018 09:14:38 pm
Look into your soul and tell me that you truly would say this in person to anyone at Melbourne Law School.
You Know What?
19/9/2018 07:58:29 pm
It's scary to think that that day may not be far away when such stuff becomes the norm in the Australian public discourse.
Apparently we have literal white supremacists here now?
18/9/2018 09:16:34 pm
Nah I'm not at all surprised. Just saddened.
Literal..?
18/9/2018 09:43:19 pm
Really?
Yes: literal
19/9/2018 04:25:14 pm
Really.
JESSIE LAYMAN
18/9/2018 10:33:55 pm
Incredible article! Thank you!
Anj
18/9/2018 10:50:50 pm
From a person of colour who attended and got value out of this event, thank you to all the contributors for writing this response.
Isabel
18/9/2018 11:28:22 pm
In response to 'Name (Required)':
Name (required)
18/9/2018 11:52:54 pm
The comment was plainly a reductio ad absurdum. The idea of me going to China, or even being born in China, and complaining about being surrounded by Asian people is clearly riduclous, by the same token an Asian person coming to Australia or being born in Australia and complaining about being surrounded by white people is equally ridiculous. The actual statistics of the suburb of Melbourne are unimportant, the point is it would be unacceptable for me to complain about its demographic makeup whatever it may be and by the same token it is unacceptable for others to complain about the demographic makeup of some other area or institution.
Emily T
19/9/2018 01:17:23 am
Hi Name (Required)
Not the Authors
19/9/2018 04:53:54 am
Two points.
The road goes ever on and on
19/9/2018 08:25:27 am
“Their desire for diversity stems from a related desire for the people in power to accurately reflect and represent the composition of society at large. Diversity is not just for the sake of it. Underlying this point is the idea that people with similar backgrounds are more likely to understand, appreciate and address each others' concerns”
Logical Conclusion? Lol!
19/9/2018 08:52:15 am
Ah, the parallel with that (in)famous slippery slope argument about bestiality in the same-sex marriage debate.
Ok?
19/9/2018 08:55:49 am
So you’re saying Obama couldn’t properly represent the interests of either white or black people as well as a white or black person could because he was neither fully white white or fully black?
STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH
19/9/2018 11:48:21 am
Thanks for your attention. Have a lovely day.
Not the Authors
19/9/2018 12:38:23 pm
Hi @THE ROAD GOES EVER ON AND ON. Thank you for highlighting your concerns. I defer to the parallel drawn by @LOGICAL CONCLUSION? LOL!. The logical trajectory of my argument is not quite as you suggest.
Wide brown land for me
19/9/2018 09:51:32 am
“People who want diversity among judges, lawyers, faculty, legislators, etc. are not hoping for some kind of a non-white takeover of the society”
How So?
19/9/2018 04:20:39 pm
Why is a celebration of diversity concerning?
How interesting
19/9/2018 04:42:16 pm
If I understand it correctly, you in fact are hoping for some non-white takeover of society?
NOT THE AUTHORS
19/9/2018 04:52:30 pm
Hello @WIDE BROWN LAND FOR ME. Thank you for your feedback.
STOP BEING SO PARANOID
19/9/2018 05:22:40 pm
@HOW INTERESTING
Not an alternative fact
19/9/2018 06:04:36 pm
“false proposition that such a thing could occur.“
Seriously, STOP BEING SO PARANOID
19/9/2018 06:50:43 pm
NOT AN ALTERNATIVE FACT, mate, not sure what your point is. The previous commenters have already said that - e.g. NOT THE AUTHORS: ‘I was simply saying that societies change over time, ethnically and otherwise…’ And I didn’t dispute that.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean everybody isn’t out to get you
19/9/2018 06:55:59 pm
If you’ve taken Corps you’ll know that a takeover can be hostile or it can be friendly, but in the end it’s still the same thing, a takeover.
Now We Are Talking
19/9/2018 07:01:23 pm
So which one is it:
@PARANOID
19/9/2018 07:11:00 pm
Dayum man! A comparison between Corps and ‘demographic change’? That’s some heavy stuff you’re smoking!
Jackson
19/9/2018 08:12:03 am
Thanks for your contribution to the conversation, authors.
You’ve got to be joking
19/9/2018 08:35:28 am
For the love of god, please don’t. As another comment said above, this may just be intellectual conversation for you but it’s causing anguish to others.
Man bear pig
19/9/2018 08:53:16 am
The truth can indeed be quite inconvenient.
Pocman
19/9/2018 08:54:46 am
I agree, when I read this article all I thought is “here comes another shitfight”. The comments on this one are probably even more nasty than the last. I know it’s an issue everyone has an opinion about but I think it should have been left to lie or at least given some space for people to reflect.
Stop Paying Attention to Him
19/9/2018 11:56:13 am
@YOU’VE GOT TO BE JOKING
Learn the Craft First
19/9/2018 08:59:48 am
Jackson bro! If you insist on writing, do make sure you give a rational explanation for why you felt the need to quote MLK so blatantly out of context.
Say No to Tyranny
19/9/2018 01:50:42 pm
Stop telling Jackson to read good books to improve his pitiful logical reasoning skills. How dare you! He clearly does not understand that opinions are like phalluses (phalli?) and consequently they should not be thrown about willy nilly! He is handicapped, if you will, in that respect. What have we come to as a society if we start poking fun at the handicapped?
De Minimis hominem
19/9/2018 09:43:39 am
It seems like you still see this as a purely intellectual debate. If you write anything else you better recognise how traumatic your actions have been for people, and justify why some average dude who thinks he has a special opinion has the right to make people feel that way because he was offended by a lunch.
‘Traumatic’ opinion
19/9/2018 09:55:18 am
So much for ‘white’ fragility.
404 parental love
19/9/2018 10:02:27 am
Where's your sensitivity? Where is your empathy? The reason those two are different has been canvassed so much already - you're not adding anything to the debate
"traumatic'
19/9/2018 12:24:53 pm
My word if this is traumatic I sincerely hope you don't become a lawyer. Ban anyone who disagrees!!!!!
Trauma ≠ submission
19/9/2018 12:48:35 pm
Oh you better believe I'm going to be a lawyer, and I'll be fighting your type every step of the way
'Traumatic'
19/9/2018 01:37:01 pm
Fighting my 'type'? what does that even mean?
Have some respect
19/9/2018 10:24:13 am
I wish I was surprised that you intend to, once again, write yourself into a narrative about which you have no clue.
Please Stop
19/9/2018 12:35:55 pm
Thanks 'Have Some Respect', you articulated it perfectly.
how is this even an issue
19/9/2018 02:59:03 pm
Jackson, I would also suggest you reconsider your decision to publish a response in De Minimis next week, for reasons that HAVE SOME RESPECT and PLEASE STOP have articulated extremely well.
Really?
19/9/2018 12:12:57 pm
I'm all for free and open debate, but surely you can see you've made your (logically fallacious) point and position abundantly clear already. I fail to see what purpose yet another article will serve. From previous articles you've penned for DeMin -- something groundbreaking about law school being difficult, I recall -- you appear to be a fan of waxing lyrical about yourself. So maybe your desire to continue to fan the flames of a conversation that is clearly causing anguish to others stems more from enjoyment of the attention this is generating amidst the wider student body, than it does a belief that anything further you write will constructively add to the debate. Idk.
FAN THEM FLAMES, JACKSON
20/9/2018 10:48:48 am
Yeah, I bet Jackson is looooving this absolute cluster fuck of abuse, pitchforks and misguided idealistic wankery. That MUST be why he's writing a reply.
Go Ahead Jackson
19/9/2018 03:07:06 pm
Attaboy! I am already looking forward to a pitiful rant on how you have been targeted for having an unpopular opinion.
pandora's box
19/9/2018 03:32:39 pm
jackson, there's another factor which I would encourage you to consider in your decision to publish or not, and that is what kind of broader response your article enables.
Good One!
19/9/2018 03:36:25 pm
'caution, nuance and empathy'
Lizz
19/9/2018 10:00:04 am
A lot of people have already canvassed this point, but I would like to break it down and hope that some of the commenters (on this article and on Jackson’s) will engage with it in earnest.
Amen
19/9/2018 11:45:12 am
THIS^^^
Exactly
19/9/2018 11:49:54 am
All hail the Deity of Reason!!!
Claire
19/9/2018 02:00:22 pm
11/10.
OMG
19/9/2018 02:05:21 pm
Lizz, why is this cogent piece of reasoning not an article for DM?! It certainly deserves to be elevated to the main pages instead of languishing at the bottom of a comments section.
Yeah
19/9/2018 02:19:21 pm
And if Jackson sees it he might learn a thing or two as well!
With You On This. Although...
19/9/2018 03:01:15 pm
You might be putting too much faith in Jackson's ability to learn from reason.
Story time
19/9/2018 03:20:17 pm
Once upon a time there was a small country in the heart of Africa where race X was historically in a position of power and privilege over race Y, but gradually the scales tipped and race Y gained more and more empowerment.
night night
19/9/2018 03:27:39 pm
so in this analogy, you're saying that:
SMDH
19/9/2018 03:28:21 pm
You must really hate the Mabo decision.
Hey Story Time
19/9/2018 03:32:53 pm
If this is a home-made allegory then let’s put it down to your naïveté and forget about it. But if you are basing your ‘story’ in reality then let’s have names of the country and the races to better understand the context. Surely such information is not confidential or privileged!
Not a very long time ago in a continent not that far away
19/9/2018 04:47:43 pm
The fact that our masters of ‘historical context’ can’t spot a reference to the Rwandan genocide when it is staring them right in the face is a bit telling.
Holy Crap!
19/9/2018 05:36:06 pm
@NOT A VERY LONG TIME AGO IN A CONTINENT NOT THAT FAR AWAY
THIS WOULD BE FUNNY IF IT WERE NOT SO SAD
19/9/2018 05:43:57 pm
Going by this stilted logic, the US should not have abolished slavery because of the risk of how the formerly oppressed people might have exacted revenge!
dot dot dot
19/9/2018 05:58:18 pm
I genuinely don't understand whether this comment is supposed to be a reference to the Rwandan genocide or not. Rwanda isn't exactly in the heart of Africa (it's on the Eastern edge of the continent), and also any account of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict would be remiss if it didn't mention the role that European colonialism played in it.
Basic White Girl
19/9/2018 12:37:15 pm
As usual, the comments are mostly white girls trying to one-up each other on who is the most 'progressive'. The authors are as much an authority on the subject as Jackson was.
Arse
19/9/2018 12:45:34 pm
You have no idea what you're talking about, to assume is to make an ass out of you and you alone apparently. This whole comment is dripping with finely distilled misogynoir
Basic White Girl
19/9/2018 01:23:19 pm
What about that comment is racist/sexist? pointing out facts which you obviously find confronting.
Ying
19/9/2018 12:49:58 pm
As a co-author of this article, I'd like to highlight that three of the co-authors of this article are not "white", myself included. I also attended the poc lunch despite my own reservations, and actually found value in it. I would like to think that my views on the topic are somewhat validated on that basis.
Basic White Girl
19/9/2018 01:28:17 pm
I still don't think you're an authority on the issue just because you're an Australian with an Asian background, but it's perfectly acceptable to speak about your own experiences.
BASIC WHITE BOY
19/9/2018 02:09:50 pm
@BASIC WHITE GIRL: thank you for demonstrating your misogynistic white boy attitude for everyone to roll their eyes at. You clearly have the socioeconomic positions of every female law student all figured out and should be congratulated, male overlord. When you're done jerking off to your own privilege and your polaroids of Jackson, please stay as far away from us - on all forms of public transport - as possible.
Basic White Girl
19/9/2018 02:21:07 pm
Unsure how any of what I've said is sexist, it's simply true that the majority of people who are activists on this topic are white women, unsure why though.
w. o. w.
19/9/2018 03:03:44 pm
Hi there,
What a Rare Gem
19/9/2018 03:09:26 pm
It seems that evidence-based reasoning is not a forte of law students at MLS.
True
19/9/2018 03:25:11 pm
Completely agree with you, GEM. It's all about the freedom to express one's opinion - no matter how pathetic the opinion is.
JEWEL
19/9/2018 03:37:29 pm
@TRUE:
True True
19/9/2018 03:49:27 pm
Hey JEWEL. I could have definitely worded my comment better. I am agreeing with both GEM and W. O. W.
Jewel
19/9/2018 03:52:30 pm
@TRUE TRUE: oops, my bad! totally misread your comment! this whole discussion has got me feeling all ~aggressive~: sorry for going off at you!
True Again
19/9/2018 03:57:45 pm
Not at all JEWEL. I started it. Besides, it felt good to have a civil disagreement for a change! ;)
HAHAHA
19/9/2018 04:26:39 pm
This is what is perhaps better known as friendly fire!
By The Way
19/9/2018 03:12:00 pm
All things considered, for me this is the first De Minimis comments area with so much allusion to 'phallus'.
Did Someone Say...
19/9/2018 04:06:35 pm
phallus?!
Big phan
19/9/2018 04:12:13 pm
so here for more peen content on DM
Notice of Change
19/9/2018 03:40:38 pm
De Minimis used to be the 'officially unofficial student newspaper' of MLS.
FACTS
20/9/2018 09:35:04 am
AND LOGIC
It's a platform for all students.
20/9/2018 10:37:23 am
Anyone can write. If you don't like this content, write something different.
It's more diverse than that.
20/9/2018 10:38:56 am
De Minimis has a wide array of contributions. People who complain DM posts only controversial content never read anything other than the controversial content.
Did That Hit a Nerve?
20/9/2018 10:51:58 am
What a persuasive argument!
Just wanted to say...
19/9/2018 04:29:44 pm
This is the hundredth comment (according to my calculation). Great job DM!
Britt
19/9/2018 11:06:25 pm
Phenomenal article. Some of the comments here demonstrate precisely why events like the POC lunch should exist. The pejorative about Asians in the CBD was revolting. But on a less depressing note, we’ve heard that many commenters found the event valuable. We’ve also heard from POC who don’t feel the need to attend events like this, which is cool and in no way diminishes the value of the lunch for others (side note: I liked your point about self-selecting).
Basic Britt
19/9/2018 11:51:25 pm
Thank you oh wise and enlightened white woman for once again leaping to the defence of people of colour and speaking on their behalf. What would we ever do without you? We shall erect a statute to you in university square celebrating your virtue.
Siane Richardson
20/9/2018 08:08:41 am
I just find it super interesting that no one has openly attacked Jackson's race or gender (which were inherent to his point of view) but when Britt fantastically articulates herself and asks simply for consideration of the experiences of others she is mocked on the basis of both.
Xavier Boffa
20/9/2018 10:39:40 am
"Basic Britt" your comment says more about you than it does about Britt. Why do people always find it so much easier to be nasty under the veil of anonymity? Do you actually think being nasty makes your argument more valid or more persuasive?
Factchecker
21/9/2018 10:28:02 am
@Siane Richardson
WISHING FOR A BETTER FUTURE
20/9/2018 08:14:19 am
Hey BRITT and SIANE RICHARDSON
Siane Richardson
21/9/2018 09:33:35 pm
Hi FACTCHECKER, thanks that's my bad. I still believe the basic bitch rant was inappropriate. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
December 2021
|