July 08, 2006

How America is Different -- and Alike

Mitch Townsend asks a very worthwhile question in a blog post over at Chicago Boyz: "where (does) the US differ(s) from the rest of the Anglosphere"?

There are at least three layers of answer to that question, from an Anglospherist point of view.

The most basic one is the matter of the accident of composition of the USA. Before Independence, the English-speaking world was in the historically rare state of being synonymous with a single state system: what we now term the "British Empire". At the beginning of the Revolution, Congress hoped, and actively worked toward, uniting all of British North America and the West Indies in the newly independent confederation. It went so far as to dispatch Benedict Arnold at the head of an army to liberate (using the term advisedly) Canada from Crown rule. Had these efforts succeeded, "the USA" would stretch from Barbados to Baffin Island. Closer to home, much of western and southern Nova Scotia had been colonized from New England, and many of those colonists had been sympathetic to the Revolution, but the proximity of the British base at Halifax, combined with their isolation from the main centers of the Revolution, meant that people culturally identical to "American" New Englanders became "un-American" Canadians for no other reason than the fortunes of war. Similarly, the white inhabitants of Barbados (from whence South Carolina had been colonized) were hardly distinguishable from the white inhabitants of Charleston, but again circumstance and fortunes of war kept them from becoming Americans.

Once these boundaries had been established, and the composition of the USA further determined by the voluntary and not-so-voluntary departure of substantial numbers of Loyalists, black and white, to Canada and the West Indies, another effect began to emerge that can be observed in any area with reasonably representative government. Take any broad and internally diverse cultural-linguistic area, and divide it into two or more state regimes. Prior to this division, the different cultural streams in the different regions will strike a balance of interests and attitudes. Alter the proportions of those regional streams, even if all the ingredients are the same, and the political outcome will be different.

One of the important facts about post-World War Two West Germany was that it was substantially more Catholic than Germany as a whole. Thus the Catholic Christian Democrat tradition and ideology was able to serve as a dominant political philosophy for the new republic, under the leadership of Christian Democrats like Conrad Audenauer, who would have not so easy a time in a united Germany.

In Anglosphere terms, the same effect meant that the quite similar political temperaments of New England and anglophone Canada had substantially different impacts on their respective nations: the New Englanders have always been one part of a mix that also included Southern lowlanders, Scots-Irish, and midland Pennsylvanians and New Yorkers, while the anglo-Canadians have always needed to seek compromise with Quebecois.

From this start, we then add two and a quarter centuries of different state actions, and the different shared experiences of American and Canadians, respectively. (Or the quite different experiences of the various regional cultures in the British Isles and of their descendants in other parts of the Anglosphere.) These add up over time.

Finally, there is the matter of binding narrative. As I discussed earlier, one thing that differentiates the Anglosphere from the rest of the West is the fact that we have formed a series of what I call "Lockean bargains". These are explicit, negotiated unions and confederations that link together the various "Burkean communities" -- the small nations, states, provinces, and counties with strong local, natural, and historical ties and affinities -- into large state-nations. The United Kingdom was the first of such Lockean bargains; the USA was the second such. (Canada and Australia were the next successful ones.) As shared history accumulates, these state-nations take on genuine loyalties and narratives of their own.

It is often said that the Uited States is a unique "nation of ideas". That is not quite true. It is a state-nation bound together first by a set of explicit bargains, and subsequently by shared history that creates a narrative. Our narrative has become the concept that we are a nation of ideas, and that those ideas are the ones expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are also Lockean bargains formed by explicit and sometimes quite mercenary bargains. Scotland united with England in no small part to bail themselves out from the Darien fiasco that had stripped the nation of its liquid capital. For all the heroism of Valley Forge and Bunker Hill, the USA would not had cohered had the North and South, big states and small states, not come to a deal about Western land titles, state war debts, and the location of the federal capital.

Canada may have been bound by Imperial loyalty and their inbred cultural differences from the USA, but the British Columbians had been very explicit -- build us a railroad or we hoist the Stars and Stripes. Australians were uncertain right up to the end as to whether "Australia" included Western Australia and New Zealand -- (yes, and no, as it turned out) and the Australian constitution still has the rather unusual feature of permitting New Zealand to join at any time at its own pleasure, with no further action from Australia needed.

Underneath the "ethnographic dazzle" of the quite different surface appearances -- the Gothic monarchical pagentry of the British state (much of it invented in the past hundred years), versus the Classical Roman allusions and Masonic pagentry of the American republic -- the actual structures of the Lockean bargains that formed the UK and the USA (and Canada and Australia later) have much in common. But to finally answer Mitch's original question, what the USA did was to take the patterns and toolkit the British used to create their society, and to simplify, universalize, and generalize it until it became a versatile template that could quickly convert expanses of raw land into new, functioning self-governing communities without a thousand years of cultural evolution, and a concept of citizenship that could take European peasant communities who had been dumbly following orders for a thousand years, and turn them within a generation into citizens, jurors, legislators, militiamen and volunteers, vestrymen and congregation-members, entrepreneurs, and self-actualized persons -- the whole Anglosphere toolkit -- all in a deliberate manner that the British never thought they would need, but now might do well to look at.

Americans have in many ways been congratulating themselves for the wrong things. The truths of the Declaration were hardly novel or shocking to the Englishmen who read them; rather, they saw them as a Whig five-finger exercise that had been boilerplate since 1688. What was shocking was that the Americans were throwing their own ideals back in their face.

Nor were representative, constitutional government and limitations on state power a novelty to the British; these were considered the very essence of the British constitution. What was shocking was the way the Americans divorced these concepts from the British understanding that they were specific liberties granted to the British alone through usage and tradition, but rather something that belonged to all men as a matter of natural law, and that could be effectively claimed.

The British Union in its narrative (as opposed to its realpolitik considerations) justified itself by a set of claims that were essentially looking backwards -- dynastic arguments stemming from the Stuart claim to the thrones of both kingdoms, and the ancient claims asserted by Edward I, looking back to the independent British empire established at the end of the Roman Empire, and beyond that to Celtic myth. Such claims could not be used again by any other people. The American Union could not and would not use such justification. It therefore constructed a forward-looking and universalist narrative, one that has been part and parcel of the American national story every since.

That is the real essence of American exceptionalism. Our uniqueness lies not in a denial of our political and cultural continuity with the rest of the Anglosphere, but rather with the way we took the British (and particularly English) experience, and turned it into a univesalized template.

And of course it's a social construct. As if there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by James C. Bennett at July 8, 2006 11:58 PM
Comments

Good job.

Consistent with Hulsebosch's thesis about the universalising of the common law and the "ancient constitution". Lord Coke would not have agreed, English liberties were restricted to England. But the Americans took it and said, no, these are general principles, not limited to the jurisdiction of English courts. The Americans took Lord Coke's ghost out for a joy ride.

Also it is interesting that the British had to handcraft legisltion for the incremental independence of Oz, Canada, etc. The Americans had a step-by-step "how to" kit for admission of states built right into the Constitution. The USA was founded as a machine for the annexation and incorporation of the entire continent. We started out very ambitious.

Socially constructed narratives are not only a way to give color to the past -- they are a motive for action in themselves. So they can to some degree be self-fulfilling prophecies. They set high standards that people, to some degree or another try to live up to. And there is nothing wrong with that, either.

Posted by: Lex at July 9, 2006 12:34 AM

I had this response to the foregoing. It may be of interest.

Posted by: Lex at July 9, 2006 10:24 PM

I lack the background in history to comment extensively on this subject, but I find it interesting that no mention is made of the fact that multiple Founders were explicit in their acknowledgment of the Biblical underpinnings of the form of government that they forged. There is nothing wrong per se with a 'social construct', unless the details of the construct violate moral principles (e.g. socialism). Treating the form of government of the United States as only a social construct denies the fact that, though imperfect as all human institutions must be, it is so far man's best attempt at forming government on Biblical principles. That we started out denying one of those principles in a big way (ethnic-based slavery), and have in the last 100 years been steadily drifting even further (various socialist programs and agencies) does not change that fact.

Posted by: Doc at July 12, 2006 11:15 AM

You say, "the Australian constitution still has the rather unusual feature of permitting New Zealand to join at any time at its own pleasure, with no further action from Australia needed" and this is very very interesting. I just reviewed the Australian Constitution online and I can't find this provision! (It is 4:30am so I might just be too tired to read straight!). Can you point me to the clause in the constitution that says this? This is very interesting, thanks!

morgan

Posted by: Morgan at July 13, 2006 02:53 AM

I am interested in this concept of universalising the British principles of civil society which informed the constitutional ideas of the Empire. While Americans can be rightly proud of this achievement as an organising principle for their own state, I can not help but feel that it is more problematic in the super-power context.

The debate surrounding the Quebec Act of 1774 reveals quite clearly how far British and American ideas about these arguments were diverging. After the Seven Years War, there were two approaches which the imperial government could take towards the non-British subjects of the British Empire like the French Canadians and Bengalis. Firstly, as the Americans maintained, they could assert that British forms of civil organisation were universally applicable, faint echoes of which might be observed in modern American foreign policy. Secondly, as the British came to believe, different peoples might be better suited to different forms government, according to their different traditions, religions, races and - for some reason - climates.

Neither of these approaches is beyond criticism in post-colonial historiography. The first - the American approach revealed in the 1774 letter from Congress addressed to the Quebecois - can be seen as denying the validity of other peoples' ways of life. The second - the British approach revealed by the Act itself - could equally be seen as dehumanising other races by arguing their unfitness for free institutions and thereby 'justifying' colonial rule, echoes of which can certainly be seen in modern British opposition to American foreign policy.

Be that as it may, my two problems with this construction are basically historicist. Firstly, the American constitution has not produced heirs: as the chap said, rather than the Mother of Democracy, America in some ways seems more like the precocious first child of Britain's difficult first marriage to mercantilism; whereas, to extend the metaphor, Britian's second marriage to economic laissez-faire has produced political offspring around the world, mainly but not exclusively in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Why is it that the American Constitution can not, to use an old chestnut, cross the seas? In this sense, can it be argued that the Revolution has separated the USA from its most conspicuous social analogues (the CANZUK group) without connecting it very usefully to the rest of the world? If so, it is at least arguable that this is a mixed blessing - who would want to share a polity with Helen Clarke or Paul Martin?

My second problem is related. Unlike its British predecessor as First Power, the American Empire seems to be subject to a considerable degree of Imperial Understretch. American soft-power is all very well for making the world in its own image on some levels - patterns of consumption around the world will never be the same again because of emulative Americanisation. But it is a much more important and serious duty for a First Power to inculcate the values of civil society than it is to spread the wearing of sportswear and the drinking of fizzy things in cans. The difference between India and China is instructive as to how useful this undertaking can be in geopolitical terms, or between Malaysia and Indonesia, or Ghana and the Congo - each of the former having been temporarily brought into the Anglosphere by the British, and each of the latter having been nothing of the kind.

So how universal is this American universalisation of 18th century British social-political ideas? It can not or will not produce replicas of itself, nor are the inheritors of this tradition of ideas particularly keen to spread its manifest benefits around the world. You may have divined from this post that I am British, and thus concluded that I'm an unreconstructed imperialist and/or Anglo-Saxon supremacist, but you'd be wrong. I am just thinking along the lines of the old tag about power, responsibility and harlots...

Posted by: Ed at July 14, 2006 03:51 AM

Ed,

Let me make a try. I think the American model only applies to large multi-ethnic societies. By multi-ethnic I don't mean a society with three or four very simialr ethnicities - even the English are more British than they are Germanic by this time - and by this measure India is more like America than like Britain. India has a federal system, for instance. The two countires also have continuing church-state tensions, and not just the challenge of juggling Hindu and Islamic interests - the theological differences (with their cultural implications) between Vaishnava and Shaiva tradtions in Hinduism are as profound as those between Christianity on side and Judaism/Islam on the other.

There is a pretty good reason why India adopted Anglosphere notions of governmemt while China has not. When the British showed up in India, there were two competing visions of society, the Hindu andthe Islamic. A third system had an opening to compete. This was hardly the case in China, which had its one very successful system, in fact the most successful up to that time.

Something else - because Confucian society's real organizing principle is a thoroughly Darwinian amoral familism. It is a very natural system, very resilient and resistant to change.

In fact the closest China comes to having the raw material for the voluntary associations that appear to be so crucial to the Anglosphere model of society is the Triad type of protective association. This is the absis of organaiztion for the whole overea Chinese community, and its public face is the corporations of Hong Kong and Singapore. Naturally there is some participation in government. We call that corruption, but it's a start, guess. Anyway, China may evolve on its own to a state that resembles the US, but it will take soem time, and it won't be because they decide to imitate us.

Posted by: Jim at July 14, 2006 07:03 AM

That all sounds eminently reasonable. I think, however, from my limited understanding, that in fact India has more in common with Canada than with the United States in terms of how the constitution works. I mean by this that it is derived from 19th rather than 18th century British ideas.

A.H.F. Lefroy wrote in 1891 that "the Americans have in their president embalmed George III.", meaning that the Republic had institutionalised and perpetuated an elective equivalent of the eighteenth century monarchy, whereas British constitutional government of the nineteenth century was precisely the type of administration to which George III. had refused to submit. Unconstrained by written ligaments, the British constitution had moved on and left the Americans behind, with what many Brits now recognise in retrospect as a better system. At the time, however, British observers could only see this as a peculiarity, especially in the American presidency. The jurist Sir Henry Maine wrote in 1885 that:

"The resemblance of the President of the United States...to the King of Great Britain, is too obvious to mistake...He is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, and with the same advice and consent he appoints Ambassadors, Ministers, Judges and all high functionaries. He has a qualified veto on legislation…The mental operation through which the framers of the American constitution passed was this: they took the King of Great Britain, went through his powers, and restrained them whenever they appeared to be excessive or unsuited to the circumstances of the United States. It is remarkable that the figure they had before them was not a generalised English king nor an abstract constitutional monarch: it was no anticipation of Queen Victoria, but George III. himself whom they took for their model."

So, this system enshrined what Canadians in particular have traditionally seen as 'The American Problem': the paralysing effect of the two co-equal houses of the US legislature, as opposed to the British slant on bicameral legislature which gives preponderance to one chamber. Slavish adherence to Montesquieu’s ideal of separating the executive and the legislature means that American secretaries of state can not sit in Congress, whereas British secretaries of state must sit in parliament, placing them under a bond of mutual responsibility with the administration as a whole.

Thus innumerable 'checks and balances' produce insuperable deadlocks in government, executive policies are only debated by people who don't really know what's going on in the legislature or are deliberately excluded from the debate for precisely this reason, and corruption is made easier rather than harder by the dead-line between executive and legislature. Moreover, legislation is at the mercy of secret committees, each controlled by its chairman and appointed by the Speaker, both of whom are party men. This makes them independent and unsystematic – perhaps not much more so than British committees, but at least under the Westminster system the committees investigate and report before full debate in the House, rather than being in control of the legislation itself.

These are, as far as I know, not features of Indian federalism, which seems to me to be more like the Canadian constitution: a federal solution nurtured in the Great Reform debates of the 19th century rather than in the Glorious Revolution Principles of 1688 which informed American ideas. What I was trying to say in my first post is that this seems to be the general rule - American constitutional ligaments simply have not produced heirs whereas the British ones have, and, as a great admirer of the US constitution (in spite of the above!), I tend to think that this must be a failure of will rather than a failure of the structure.

Posted by: Ed at July 14, 2006 10:06 AM

Ed,

You sound like an admirer of the Constitution to me.

You make a good point about the centrality of G III in the thinking that went into the US constitution. I had never thought of it that way, but now it seems obvious. I thin k it was a kucky choice, because botht eh man and the era represent an extreme of executive power, at least in the European context.

You are discussing the function of the federal government and especially the legislature, which is indeed fairly idiosyncratic and without many imitatirs, while I was focussing on the federalism if India and the US in my commnet. Here again though, India has a federal system not because they consciously decided to copy our system, but becuase their conditions require such a system. I cannot imagine the class of Indians that designed that government, products of British colonial snobbery, ever giving a moment's thought to American forms as a model for anything.

Something else to remember is the differnece between design and realization. The US federal system as designed ended in the Civil War. Dead and buried and forgotten. WWII, the Cold War and the Civil Rights Movement finished off whatever autonomy the states may have had. India for its part has had to redraw state boundaries. I wish to God we would the same in the US; some of our boundaries look positively malicious. The Washington-Oregon border in the Portland area is just wicked nonsense. Including the Columbia River drainage in with the Puget Sound is another such piece of witlessness, however much more entertaining it makes state politics. They should just have followed the native setlement patterns, maybe the pre-existing language boundaries, as a guide. Ha, ha - I know.

Posted by: Jim at July 14, 2006 11:07 PM

I'm not sure about GIII. representing the extreme end of European absolutism. I'm not sure how that's possible in the post-1688 context. He was no Roi Soleil, and I don't think he ever really sought to be.

It also occurs to me, therefore, that the inherent and widely-acknowledged conservatism of the American revolution (Jefferson trying not to innovate too much and so on) presents us with another aspect of this 'mystery' of why the Constitution is so idiosyncratic. It has been traditional for British sympathisers with the rebels - Lord Shelburne and so on - to represent the new constitution as a revolution in constitutional forms to protect an ancient understanding of rights. But, as discussed above, this was not even much of a revolution in constitutional forms - at the very most it was the institutionalisation of the constitutional forms which Americans had always thought they had, but came to believe in the 1770s that they didn't have after all.

Why, then, if these changes were so much part of the mainstream political thought structure, was it never considered as a post-colonial consitutional solution for, say, Australia? Royalism is perhaps the answer, since they wanted to keep the Crown as head of state but by that time it was impossible to invest HIM Queen-Empress Victoria with the political powers of George III. But how can this apply to, say, India? For all my comments about Indian nationalists being reared on the political thought of 19th century rather than 18th century Britain, ever since the US Revolution the rhetoric, at the very least, of that secession from the Empire has been copied in every British imperial possession seeking independence - witness the Indian 'Congress', the African National 'Congress', and so on. If they were looking to America as a template for secession from the Empire, and the American Solution was so far from alien to Anglocentric political discourse, then why is there not a single imitator?

I suspect that if we come by a definite answer to this question which is not so lazy as to posit different power relationships etc., we'll find out something very important in Anglosphere terms.

Posted by: Ed at July 19, 2006 07:25 AM

whats the difference between the U.S declaration & the French Declaration

Posted by: sophia at October 2, 2006 02:10 PM

I do not think that New Zealand has an automatic right of entry into the Commonwealth of Australia, but in an age when it would have required the permission of the British Parliament for New Zealand to become an Australian State, that permission was given by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in section 6 and the Constitution is a schedule to that Act. This meant that section 121 could be utilized - which is found in the schedule - without the permission of the British Parliament. Today, that permission is irrelevant.

121 New States may be admitted or established

The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new
States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose
such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation
in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.

6 Definitions

The Commonwealth shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as
established under this Act.

The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New
Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and
South Australia, including the northern territory of South
Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and
such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established
by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the
Commonwealth shall be called a State.

Original States shall mean such States as are parts of the
Commonwealth at its establishment.

Posted by: BRIAN at February 10, 2007 09:52 AM

The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New
Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and
South Australia, including the northern territory of South
Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and
such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established
by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the
Commonwealth shall be called a State.

acrobat
ad aware
adulte
amateur
amateur
amatrice
anal antivirus
antivirusgratuit
anus ares
asian asiatique
ass astuce
auto avatar
avatars
baise bebe
beurette
bikini
bisexuel
bite black
blague
blagues
blonde
boob brune
carte carte
carte cartes
cartes
cartes
celebrite
chaleur
chansongratuit
chansonsgratuit
charme
chatgratuit
cheat cinema
clipgratuit
clitoris
clone cochon
codejeu
coquin
couille
couple
cul culgratuit
diaporama
diaporamas
divx divxgratuit
download
ecrandeveille
ecrandeveillegratuit
ecransdeveille
edonkey
emoticone
emoticonegratuit
emoticones
emule emulegratuit
enculer
enfant
erotique
erotiques
erotisme
etudiante
exhibitionniste
frallye
familiale
famille
fellation
femme femme
fesse fetiche
fetichisme
film film
filmgratuit
filmpornogratuit
films filmxgratuit
firefox
fonddecran
fonddecrangratuit
fondsdecran
football
gay gaygratuit
girl golf
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuite
gratuite
gratuite
gros grosse
grosseingratuit
hard hardcore
hentaigratuit
histoire
homosexuel
horoscope
horoscopegratuit
horoscopes
hot humour
icone
icq jeuadultegratuit
jeudevoituregratuit
jeuenfantgratuit
jeugratuit
jeugratuitcadeaux
jeune
jeuvideogratuit
jeux kazaa
kazaagratuit
latinas
lesbian
lesbienne
limewire
lingerie
logiciel
logiciel
logicielgratuit
logiciels
logiciels
logicielsgratuit
manga
massage
mature
messenger
messengergratuit
models
morpheus
movie
mpgratuit
msn msngratuit
mure musicgratuite
musiquegratuite
musiquesgratuites
nero nerogratuit
noire
nu nude
nudiste
orgasme
orgie
parolegratuit
parolesgratuit
partition
partitions
penis
photo
photo
photo gay gratuit
photo porno gratuit
photo sexe gratuit
photo sex gratuit
pied pipe
poitrine
porn porn gratuit
porno
porno
pornographie
porno gratuit
pps ppt
programme
pussy
rasee
real player
recette
recettes
rousse
sado safari
salope
sex sex
sexe sexe
sexe amateur gratuit
sexe gratuit
sex gratuit
sex gratuit beurette
sexuelle
sexy shareaza
skype
sms gratuit
sodomie
soluce
solution jeu
spectacle
sport
sportive
spybot
suce suceuse
sudoku gratuit
tarot
tarot gratuit
tatouage
tatouages
teen tele
telechargement
telechargement
telechargement antivirus
telechargement chanson
telechargement chansons
telechargement divx
telechargement emule
telechargement film
telechargement film gratuit
telechargement gratuit
telechargement kazaa
telechargement logiciel
telechargement logiciel gratuit
telechargement logiciels
tv vacances
video
video
video comique
video gratuit
video porno
video porno
video porno gratuit
videos
videos
videos comiques
video sexe gratuit
video sex gratuit
video x gratuit
vlc voiture
voyage
voyager
voyager
voyeur
wallpaper
webcam
winamp
winmx
winrar
winzip
x x
x gratuit
xxx xxx gratuit
yoga telecharger jeu gratuit
telecharger kazaa
telecharger logiciel
telecharger logiciels
telecharger messenger
telecharger movie
telecharger mp
telecharger msn
telecharger music
telecharger musique
telecharger nero
telecharger parole
telecharger paroles
telecharger porn
telecharger porno
telecharger sex
telecharger sexe
telecharger x
telecharger xxx
television
tennis
tit
toon
tourisme
touristique
tout gratuit
traducteur gratuit
transsexuelle
truc
tuning
illusion
image
image
image humour
jeu
jeu
telechargement messenger
telechargement movie
telechargement mp
telechargement msn
telechargement music
telechargement musique
telechargement nero
telechargement parole
telechargement paroles
telechargement porn
telechargement porno
telechargement sex
telechargement sexe
telechargement x
telechargement xxx
telecharger
telecharger
telecharger
telecharger antivirus
telecharger antivirus
telecharger chanson
telecharger chansons
telecharger divx
telecharger emule
telecharger film
telecharger gratuit

yoga
xxx-gratuit
xxx
x-gratuit
x
x
winzip
winrar
%winmx
%winamp
%webcam
%wallpaper
%voyeur
%voyager
%voyage
%voiture
%vlc
%video-x-gratuit
%video-sex-gratuit
%video-sexe-gratuit
%videos-comiques
%videos
%videos
%video-porno-gratuit
%video-porno
%video-porno
%video-gratuit
%video-comique
%video
%video
%vacances
%tv
%tuning
%truc
%transsexuelle
%traducteur-gratuit
%tout-gratuit
%touristique
%tourisme
%toon
%tit
%tennis
%television
%telecharger-xxx
%telecharger-x
%telecharger-sexe
%telecharger-sex
%telecharger-porno
%telecharger-porn
%telecharger-paroles
%telecharger-parole
%telecharger-nero
%telecharger-musique
%telecharger-music
%telecharger-msn
%telecharger-mp
%telecharger-movie
%telecharger-messenger
%telecharger-logiciels
%telecharger-logiciel
%telecharger-kazaa
%telecharger-jeu-gratuit
%telecharger-gratuit
%telecharger-film
%telecharger-emule
%telecharger-divx
%telecharger-chansons
%telecharger-chanson
%telecharger-antivirus
%telecharger-antivirus
%telecharger
%telecharger
%telecharger
%telechargement-xxx
%telechargement-x
%telechargement-sexe
%telechargement-sex
%telechargement-porno
%telechargement-porn
%telechargement-paroles
%telechargement-parole
%telechargement-nero
%telechargement-musique
%telechargement-music
%telechargement-msn
%telechargement-mp
%telechargement-movie
%telechargement-messenger
%telechargement-logiciels
telechargement-logiciel-gratuit
telechargement-logiciel
telechargement-kazaa
telechargement-gratuit
telechargement-film-gratuit
telechargement-film
telechargement-emule
telechargement-divx
telechargement-chansons
telechargement-chanson
telechargement-antivirus
telechargement
telechargement
tele
teen
tatouages
tatouage
tarot-gratuit
tarot
sudoku-gratuit
suceuse
suce
spybot
sportive
sportive
sportive
sport
spectacle
soluce
sodomie
sms-gratuit
skype
shareaza
sexy
sexuelle
sex-gratuit-beurette
sex-gratuit
sexe-gratuit
sexe-amateur-gratuit
sexe
sexe
sex
sex
salope
safari
sado
rousse
recettes
recette
real-player
rasee
pussy
programme
pps-ppt
porno-gratuit
pornographie
porno
porno
porn-gratuit
porn
poitrine
pipe
pied
photo-sex-gratuit
photo-sexe-gratuit
photo-porno-gratuit
photo-gay-gratuit
photo
photo
penis
partitions
partition
paroles-gratuit
parole-gratuit
orgie
orgasme
nudiste
nude
nu
noire
nero-gratuit
nero
musiques-gratuites
%musique-gratuite
%music-gratuite
%mure
%msn-gratuit
%msn
%mp-gratuit
%movie
%morpheus
%models
%messenger

357
358
358
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513

Posted by: luisa at March 9, 2007 03:11 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?