# national character



## muselinazi

What do you think about the concept of national character? 
I wonder what purpose it serves. 
There seems to have been a lot of debate in Australia recently about 'Australian values' and what it means to be Australian (usually within the context of questions surrounding immigration and citizenship). 
At times I can't help but feel that the attitudes of the government (and therefore presumably much of the population) often condradict the very virtues and values which they claim as unassailable aspects of the national character. 
I wonder how often a nation's actions contradict its own conception of itself and how a nation's idea of itself contrasts with ideas others have about it...
Anyway, just some thoughts 
K


----------



## boardslide315

From what you just said, it seems like Australia is in the same boat as America as far as the immigration issue goes. America was a nation founded on immigrants and the aspiration for the 'American Dream,' but many people in the government and elsewhere seem to think that the dream is dead, or at least not available to you if you're not already a citizen.


----------



## mirx

boardslide315 said:


> From what you just said, it seems like Australia is in the same boat as America as far as the immigration issue goes. America was a nation founded on immigrants and the aspiration for the 'American Dream,' but many people in the government and elsewhere seem to think that the dream is dead, or at least not available to you if you're not already a citizen.


 

Perhaps because the dream was already achieved but those who founded the nation.

Unfortunately The USA, or any other country, can't be all wide open to everybody. As for Australia it has a relatively small population and probably there're still many resources and enough space for many more immigrants. But the times when THE USA was an isoleted and uninhabited landmass are long gone, and *these *times demand much more control on the matter.

It's contradicory indeed, but then again. what isn't?


----------



## elpoderoso

muselinazi said:


> What do you think about the concept of national character?
> I wonder what purpose it serves.
> There seems to have been a lot of debate in Australia recently about 'Australian values' and what it means to be Australian (usually within the context of questions surrounding immigration and citizenship).
> At times I can't help but feel that the attitudes of the government (and therefore presumably much of the population) often condradict the very virtues and values which they claim as unassailable aspects of the national character.
> I wonder how often a nation's actions contradict its own conception of itself and how a nation's idea of itself contrasts with ideas others have about it...
> Anyway, just some thoughts
> K


We hear a lot about the British character traits of Fairplay and welcome for newcomers a lot in our immigration debate. However I only became aware of these intrinsic characteristics after reading about them in newspapers.
I think the concept of what constitutes this vague notion of a national character varies according to what the Government or media want people to believe.


----------



## palomnik

I believe that there is such a thing as national character. Having said that, that character may not always be what any given nation considers to be its character; in fact, sometimes it contradicts it.  "National characters" embody a nest of related tendencies, some of them positive, some negative.

I realize that I'm talking in the abstract. I prefer not to say anything specific about any given culture here , because it would after all be a subjective judgment, and I would run the risk of offending somebody or another somewhere, which is not my intent.  

However, if you deal with cross-cultural situations, which most members of this forum do, sooner or later you have to draw your own conclusions about the character of other nations, and about your own nation as well.  It's a necessity in order to be able to function in that environment.


----------



## maxiogee

muselinazi said:


> What do you think about the concept of national character?


 
I try hard not to think about concepts of the non-existent.


----------



## Bonjules

Hola,
I once saw a pantomime poking fun at 'national character'(?common sterotype, with a little grain of truth, sometimes?).
A promenading woman loses (or 'loses?') her handkerchief. Men pick it up and do the following:
1. Eagerly pick it up, run after the woman and offer it
to her with a very 'galante' bow (and, probably a dinner
invitaion, if words were allowed)
2. Takes out a measuring tape, notes dimensions and characteristics of object and writes the data down in a little notebook
3. Takes up the hankie (hanky?) looks at it, caresses it
and seems to break out into an aria (about women-mothers?, tears and hankies if one could hear)- I think I might be making this one up...
There was an other one, which was mean.
You get to guess who is who. All I can say, none of them was supposed to be British. What can you suggest
a Brit should/would do, or are there any other suggestions for other nations?

PS I note that my post is a little eurocentric, or is that a stereotype too? In any case, I am sorry. Maybe women promenading w. hankies
is...no, forget it.


----------



## anthodocheio

Bonjules, I don't think that I can guess which these three nations are. 

For me all these thoughts about the national character of Greece came to me when I came into this cross-cultural situation. I met people wanting to know how Greece is, and I found myself unable to answer.

Still I don't know if I am a typical greek girl, but anyway, it's not my intention to be a typical anything!

Saludos


----------



## Bonjules

anthodocheio said:


> Bonjules, I don't think that I can guess which these three nations are.
> 
> For me all these thoughts about the national character of Greece came to me when I came into this cross-cultural situation. I met people wanting to know how Greece is, and I found myself unable to answer.


Hola antho,
You mean to say that you can think of no stereotypes that either 1.Greeks have about themselves or
                2. Greeks are aware that others have about them?
      Germans are aware that others see them often (and sometimes they see themselves) as a bit pedantic, bureaucratic, humorless, uptight...
All this comes from the past, of course, and does not apply to any living German, for sure!
saludos


----------



## .   1

mirx said:


> As for Australia it has a relatively small population and probably there're still many resources and enough space for many more immigrants.


We have bulk space.  As much as you like.  Space is no problem.  The limiting factor is water.  Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on the face of the planet and life can not survive without freely available water.  Australia also has the oldest and most nutrient poor soil on Earth.  Another limiting factor is that Australia does not benefit from the wind blown effect of nutrients from other areas.  The prevailing weather conditions dictate that Australia has to survive on what thin soil we have.  We are too far away from any significant land mass for additional nutrients to reach our land in any significant quantities but we are just as vulnerable to having our top soil blow off into the huge moat around us.

I am disgusted by the concept of 'being Australian' or 'Australian values' because the only time that I hear the phrases is when they fall limp from the flacid lips of some pasty faced little dweeb trying to rouse the rabble to vote for him by convincing the peeple that he is going to save them from the thundering hoards of eemegrants.  The ignorance of such concepts astound me.  I have human values and I enjoy being human but as far as being Australian I will choose to do that internally and not listen to some tub thumper ringing the welkin by slagging off at people who are only different to me in the most superficial physical sense.

.,,


----------



## Bonjules

Hola all,

Maybe muselinazi can clarify what we are supposed to talk avout here:
1.Features of a 'National Character' or
2. professed/desirable 'values'  or
3. physical characteristics of a country?

All very different things


----------



## anthodocheio

Don't think of it so much!

Is there any chance that you tell me about the pantomime?


----------



## anthodocheio

Bonjules said:


> Hola antho,
> You mean to say that you can think of no stereotypes that either 1.Greeks have about themselves or
> 2. Greeks are aware that others have about them?
> Germans are aware that others see them often (and sometimes they see themselves) as a bit pedantic, bureaucratic, humorless, uptight...
> All this comes from the past, of course, and does not apply to any living German, for sure!
> saludos


 
All I wanted to say was that I don't know if those stereotypes are appliable. Germans don't accept those negative things. Here I'm talking about accepting or not possitive things too. Like the Greek Hospitality for example.


----------



## Athaulf

boardslide315 said:


> From what you just said, it seems like Australia is in the same boat as America as far as the immigration issue goes. America was a nation founded on immigrants and the aspiration for the 'American Dream,' but many people in the government and elsewhere seem to think that the dream is dead, or at least not available to you if you're not already a citizen.



This is actually one of the greatest contradictions in the mindset of most people nowadays.  On one hand, discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, religion, etc. is considered as an immense evil and injustice that must be rooted out by all means.  On the other hand, however, discrimination based on _nationality_ (in the sense of being a citizen of a particular country) is a core characteristic of every political system nowadays: in almost every matter, the government of each country not only discriminates between its citizens and foreigners, but also between different categories of foreigners, depending on their nationality.  Such discrimination is universally considered not only as proper and justified, but also as a fundamentally necessary function of government. 

But what is the essential difference between such discrimination and the other, unacceptable forms of discrimination?  One's nationality is determined by an accident of birth, just like one's ethnic origin, and it's extremely difficult (in many cases totally impossible) to change it.   In contrast, to make things even more paradoxical, it is considered unacceptable to discriminate on the basis of religion, which _is _ultimately a willful choice of each individual.  

So why is this system of categorizing people into nationalities considered to be any more justified than e.g. apartheid, Jim Crow, and other systems of categorizing them according to some different criteria determined by accidents of birth?   Why do people think that imposing severe restrictions on one's freedom of movement, work, doing business, etc. are less cruel and humiliating when based on one accident of birth than another?

Unfortunately, whenever I make this point, I usually get back those familiar stares of amazed incomprehension that are so often provoked by questioning the issues of universal consensus.  People often end up thinking that I'm in fact trying to argue in favor of other forms of discrimination by comparing them with this "obviously" justified and necessary one, rather than actually questioning the latter.


----------



## Bonjules

anthodocheio said:


> Don't think of it so much!
> 
> Is there any chance that you tell me about the pantomime?


 
Of course I will! But not just yet. I was hoping others would take a crack at it and we would have a real little feast of stereotypes. I would like to know what a Brit, a Swede, a Russian, a Spaniard, and yes, a Greek would do (just tell us what the sterotypes are and I'll tell you if they are 'justified', ha ha - I mean they probably aren't); not to mention a Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Korean, Filipino, Indonesian - you people complete the list(I'm not leaving anybody out on purpose)....like all the African nations, the Southamericans, Mexicans..., 
US, Canadians -anybody!


----------



## Bonjules

anthodocheio said:


> Germans don't accept those negative things. Here I'm talking about accepting or not possitive things too. Like the Greek Hospitality for example.


quite correct, antho.
You are right, the Greek hospitality is famous. Is it in your opinion still very much a reality, lets say in a small community, or even in a bigger town?
Not all notions about Germans are bad either: They are considered industrious, methodical, inventive (making some of the most salivated over cars in the world!), creative (composers) and so on.
But, as you know, one should rather point to one's own weaknesses and let others sing one's praises!
saludos


----------



## anthodocheio

So, to get started, I say that the first choice for me is a "latine-spirit" man and the second one, just must be Serloc Holmes.
Am I right?
Anfortunately, about greek guys, those around my age or younger don't have the spirit of the gentleman in them. They will propably look around to see if anyone else is doing something and only if easy will do something. No words available!

I think we miss older years!


----------



## ireney

*Mod note: Posts listing "national characteristics" for the sole purpose of listing them or denying/confirming there's any truth behind them will be deleted.*


----------



## Bonjules

anthodocheio said:


> So, to get started, I say that the first choice for me is a "latine-spirit" man and the second one, just must be Serloc Holmes.
> Am I right?


 antho, you are not doing bad at all! Especially with
#1. 
#2 is certainly a good guess, except that I said no British were part of it. Sherlock Holmes is surely forever associated with 'Britishness', I agree (can British forer@s comment on what that is?).
Take another shot at #2. The answer is in my posts.

I am sorry to hear about the 'gentleman' thing. Seems to be on the decline everywhere.
saludos


----------



## muselinazi

. said:


> I am disgusted by the concept of 'being Australian' or 'Australian values' because the only time that I hear the phrases is when they fall limp from the flacid lips of some pasty faced little dweeb trying to rouse the rabble to vote for him by convincing the peeple that he is going to save them from the thundering hoards of eemegrants. The ignorance of such concepts astound me. I have human values and I enjoy being human but as far as being Australian I will choose to do that internally and not listen to some tub thumper ringing the welkin by slagging off at people who are only different to me in the most superficial physical sense.
> 
> .,,



Amen to that!


----------



## muselinazi

Athaulf said:


> This is actually one of the greatest contradictions in the mindset of most people nowadays. On one hand, discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, religion, etc. is considered as an immense evil and injustice that must be rooted out by all means. On the other hand, however, discrimination based on _nationality_ (in the sense of being a citizen of a particular country) is a core characteristic of every political system nowadays: in almost every matter, the government of each country not only discriminates between its citizens and foreigners, but also between different categories of foreigners, depending on their nationality. Such discrimination is universally considered not only as proper and justified, but also as a fundamentally necessary function of government.
> 
> But what is the essential difference between such discrimination and the other, unacceptable forms of discrimination? One's nationality is determined by an accident of birth, just like one's ethnic origin, and it's extremely difficult (in many cases totally impossible) to change it. In contrast, to make things even more paradoxical, it is considered unacceptable to discriminate on the basis of religion, which _is _ultimately a willful choice of each individual.
> 
> So why is this system of categorizing people into nationalities considered to be any more justified than e.g. apartheid, Jim Crow, and other systems of categorizing them according to some different criteria determined by accidents of birth? Why do people think that imposing severe restrictions on one's freedom of movement, work, doing business, etc. are less cruel and humiliating when based on one accident of birth than another?
> 
> Unfortunately, whenever I make this point, I usually get back those familiar stares of amazed incomprehension that are so often provoked by questioning the issues of universal consensus. People often end up thinking that I'm in fact trying to argue in favor of other forms of discrimination by comparing them with this "obviously" justified and necessary one, rather than actually questioning the latter.



I actually think the questions posed in your post are really interesting. At the moment though I'm not sure exactly how to respond. 
I wonder how one would define 'nation' in the modern world? It seems like a very problematic concept to me.
The idea of nations as opposed to nation-states is interesting.
I can't quite reconcile the idea of a nation-state, like Australia or the USA with stateless 'nations' like the Roma or the Kurds.
What makes a nation exactly I wonder?


----------



## mirx

. said:


> We have bulk space. As much as you like. Space is no problem. The limiting factor is water. Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on the face of the planet and life can not survive without freely available water. Australia also has the oldest and most nutrient poor soil on Earth. Another limiting factor is that Australia does not benefit from the wind blown effect of nutrients from other areas. The prevailing weather conditions dictate that Australia has to survive on what thin soil we have. We are too far away from any significant land mass for additional nutrients to reach our land in any significant quantities but we are just as vulnerable to having our top soil blow off into the huge moat around us.
> 
> I am disgusted by the concept of 'being Australian' or 'Australian values' because the only time that I hear the phrases is when they fall limp from the flacid lips of some pasty faced little dweeb trying to rouse the rabble to vote for him by convincing the peeple that he is going to save them from the thundering hoards of eemegrants. The ignorance of such concepts astound me. I have human values and I enjoy being human but as far as being Australian I will choose to do that internally and not listen to some tub thumper ringing the welkin by slagging off at people who are only different to me in the most superficial physical sense.
> 
> .,,


 
Thank you for taking the time to explain.



> MIRX
> Unfortunately The USA, *or any other country,* can't be all wide open to everybody


.

I never meant that Australia should enocurage or allow immigration  because it has a big territory, There must surely be other reasons why the australian government enocurages or disencourages immigration. 

But as far as I am concerned the Asutralian immigration system is one of the most welcoming systems. The attitudes that people take towards immigration, and most importantly towards immigrants are unkown to me.


----------



## muselinazi

Bonjules said:


> Hola all,
> 
> Maybe muselinazi can clarify what we are supposed to talk avout here:
> 1.Features of a 'National Character' or
> 2. professed/desirable 'values'  or
> 3. physical characteristics of a country?
> 
> All very different things



Initially, I was talking about the idea of national character as a concept.  However I personally consider national values to be inextricably linked to this idea. It's generally difficult to talk about one without at least implicitly refering to the other.

I also think it is inevitable that in a discussion like this questions can only lead to more questions. How my initial post was interpreted doesn't really bother me because it asks questions for which there are no definitive answers. I am interested in all possible responses, even if they stray a little from the initial intentions of my post.


----------



## muselinazi

mirx said:


> But as far as I am concerned the Asutralian immigration system is one of the most welcoming systems.



How familiar are you exactly with the Australian immigration system?
For many people 'welcoming' would not be the word that would first come to mind.


----------



## Bonjules

muselinazi said:


> I can't quite reconcile the idea of a nation-state, like Australia or the USA with stateless 'nations' like the Roma or the Kurds.
> What makes a nation exactly I wonder?


 
Groups that feel they share a common ethnicity, language, history often consider themselves a 'nation'.
That others might force them to live in different 'states'
for other reasons (a common practice during the horse trading in the age of colonialism and imperialism)can delay  aspirations of having a recognized territory of their own, sometimes for a long time.
Kurdestan is a good example. I don't know if the Roma, who don't aspire to a 'homeland' as such(as far as I know) consider themselves a 'nation', but I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## .   1

mirx said:


> But as far as I am concerned the Asutralian immigration system is one of the most welcoming systems. The attitudes that people take towards immigration, and most importantly towards immigrants are unkown to me.


Mate,
There are so many immigrants down here that it is hard to form a quorum to give the other mob a hard time.
There is a bit of tension between first generation mobs and other first generation mobs but by the time the second generation is produced we all become so damned apathetic about the matter that we wind up having a barbie at the beach or river and forgetting about the whole thing.
We are fascinated that in some places people are still yelling at each other about something that one bloke's grandfather did to the other bloke's grandfather 500 years ago?!?!  It just blows us away.  I have little idea about what any of my grandfathers did that long ago and I sure as hell wouldn't carry their can for them.  My dad had a strong dislike for one particular ethnic group and wouldn't have a bar of them because of a few bad things that happened to his dad during the war but this has no impact on me.  My best friend on this forum is from that country and this is the first time that I linked the two.

.,,


----------



## mirx

muselinazi said:


> How familiar are you exactly with the Australian immigration system?
> For many people 'welcoming' would not be the word that would first come to mind.


 

I say what I said, because it is relatively easy to obtain a Visa for work in Ausrtralia, and it only takes 2 years to be able to apply for permanent residence permits. This is a luxury that immigrants in many other countries could never think of. That's about the system.

The actual situation of immigrants, well that, I don't know and I said it before.


----------



## muselinazi

Bonjules said:


> Groups that feel they share a common ethnicity, language, history often consider themselves a 'nation'.
> That others might force them to live in different 'states'
> for other reasons (a common practice during the horse trading in the age of colonialism and imperialism)can delay aspirations of having a recognized territory of their own, sometimes for a long time.
> Kurdestan is a good example. I don't know if the Roma, who don't aspire to a 'homeland' as such(as far as I know) consider themselves a 'nation', but I wouldn't be surprised.



I understand the distinction but I guess I'm wondering whether you can reconcile that idea of nation with the nation-state. 
It is hard not to be sympathetic to stateless peoples' aspirations to independence or rather their desire to govern their own territory but what are the implications of this concept of nation? Very few countries in the world are culturally, ethnically, linguistically and religiously homogenous. And people are more mobile and interconnected nowadays.
Is the idea of forming nation-states based on nation realistic?
I don't know.


----------



## Bonjules

muselinazi said:


> Many feel that in an age of urgent global problems the idea of nation states in any shape or form is not helpful:
> Global problems need global solutions( it was quite hot here today...).
> But don't hold your breath: The idea of the Nation-State is so deeply entrenched that it will require a lot to change it.


----------



## winklepicker

HEAVEN AND HELL​ 
_Heaven is ..._
Where the police are British, the cooks are French, the mechanics are German, the lovers are Italian, and everything is organized by the Swiss.

_Hell is ..._
Where the police are German, the cooks are British, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss and everything is organized by the Italians.

I am a racist (=guilty of race stereotyping). If you laughed at the above, you are too. I think it's ingrained in us that races have characteristics.

But I'm not prejudiced. When I meet a Frenchman I don't assume he is a good cook. Mind you, there's a fair chance of it.


----------



## Bonjules

I heard it like this:
Uno vive bien: 
Con una casa inglesa, un carro alema'n, comida china, una esposa hispana y un sueldo americano.
Uno vive mal:
Con comida alemana, una casa china, un carro americano, una esposa inglesa y un sueldo latino...


----------



## Surly Canuck

National character is a difficult concept for most younger nations to wrestle with... particularly as a Canadian.  I am aware of the international view of people of my nation, but it's not something I would necessarily agree with.

Being a close neighbour to one of the dominant/pervasive societies on the planet has lead many people of my generation to define ourselves as what we are not, versus what we are.

Additionally, as a geographically massive nation, we are very regionalized.  What could be considered the 'character' of those living on the Atlantic Coast, versus those living on the Pacific Coast are completely different things.

I've lived all over the country and can say without reservation that one region's view of another is nearly always as ill informed as the reverse view.

However, I'm very interested to read what our Australian fellows have to say.  From what I've gathered from Australians I've met and from what I've read, there are a large number of similarities between our two nations/people. =)


----------



## Bonjules

Surly Canuck said:


> great! I think I said somewhere else before: Canada felix!
> You are lucky you can't be easily categorized/stereotyped - maybe some Australia and some Switzerland(if it wasn't for the immigration)?


----------



## TRG

Athaulf said:


> This is actually one of the greatest contradictions in the mindset of most people nowadays. On one hand, discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, religion, etc. is considered as an immense evil and injustice that must be rooted out by all means. On the other hand, however, discrimination based on _nationality_ (in the sense of being a citizen of a particular country) is a core characteristic of every political system nowadays: in almost every matter, the government of each country not only discriminates between its citizens and foreigners, but also between different categories of foreigners, depending on their nationality. Such discrimination is universally considered not only as proper and justified, but also as a fundamentally necessary function of government.
> 
> But what is the essential difference between such discrimination and the other, unacceptable forms of discrimination? One's nationality is determined by an accident of birth, just like one's ethnic origin, and it's extremely difficult (in many cases totally impossible) to change it. In contrast, to make things even more paradoxical, it is considered unacceptable to discriminate on the basis of religion, which _is _ultimately a willful choice of each individual.
> 
> So why is this system of categorizing people into nationalities considered to be any more justified than e.g. apartheid, Jim Crow, and other systems of categorizing them according to some different criteria determined by accidents of birth? Why do people think that imposing severe restrictions on one's freedom of movement, work, doing business, etc. are less cruel and humiliating when based on one accident of birth than another?
> 
> Unfortunately, whenever I make this point, I usually get back those familiar stares of amazed incomprehension that are so often provoked by questioning the issues of universal consensus. People often end up thinking that I'm in fact trying to argue in favor of other forms of discrimination by comparing them with this "obviously" justified and necessary one, rather than actually questioning the latter.


 
This does not seem to be a difficult question. Within a given country the laws of that country, and no other, are expected to apply to all citizens equally and uniformly. That is part of the fundamental nature of being separate country, to be able to govern itself and make its own rules by which citizens are expected to conduct themselves. Some of the rules/laws apply to visitors, and some don't. Isn't the idea of equal treatment under law within a given country a fairly broadly accepted principle internationlly?


----------



## Athaulf

TRG said:


> This does not seem to be a difficult question. Within a given country the laws of that country, and no other, are expected to apply to all citizens equally and uniformly. That is part of the fundamental nature of being separate country, to be able to govern itself and make its own rules by which citizens are expected to conduct themselves. Some of the rules/laws apply to visitors, and some don't. Isn't the idea of equal treatment under law within a given country a fairly broadly accepted principle internationlly?



I'm not talking about the legal and theoretical basis of the modern nation-state; all these things are very well known to me.  I am talking about the moral attitudes that people have towards these issues.  Most people nowadays perceive discrimination based on any other criteria determined by the accident of birth except nationality as the very pinnacle of evil and depravity, and believe that such policies could be advocated (let alone enforced) only by monsters in human form.  However, the reasoning by which this attitude is generally justified is absolutely never applied to the discrimination based on nationality, even though logically, it is no less valid in any respect in this case.  

One can of course argue that discrimination based on nationality is necessary for some reasons of practical policy, but rest assured that at the times and places where apartheid or Jim Crow laws were enforced, there were also plenty of similar justifications offered in favor of the status quo.  So how can one look at those times and places from any moral high ground, while accepting the modern concept of nationality as proper and necessary?  

Of course, I don't expect these arguments to gain any widespread acceptance.  I'm merely pointing out another example effectively showing how people of our age often like to consider themselves highly rational and/or morally superior on highly questionable grounds.


----------



## Cereth

Bonjules said:


> I heard it like this:
> Uno vive bien:
> Con una casa inglesa, un carro alema'n, comida china, una esposa hispana y un sueldo americano.
> Uno vive mal:
> Con comida alemana, una casa china, un carro americano, una esposa inglesa y un sueldo latino...


 
hola bonjules...yo seria la esposa hispana y tengo el carro alemán..como comida china cuando quiero....pero de donde es el amante?? australiano, italiano???
I wanna know


----------



## .   1

This Australiano can't help you.  It is kind of weird having my national character being discussed in a language that I can not understand on a thread discussing national character.  _Viva la difference._

.,,


----------



## Cereth

sorry for that!!!
Bonjules said, one can live well if has : a british house, a german car, american salary, a hispanic wife and chinese food...
I said I can be the hispanic wife, I have a german car and eat chinese food whenever I want...I just wonder about the lover who will pay for the house is he australian, italian?

cheers,,,!!


----------



## Bonjules

Cereth said:


> hola bonjules...yo seria la esposa hispana y tengo el carro alemán..como comida china cuando quiero....pero de donde es el amante?? australiano, italiano???
> I wanna know


 
Bien, Cereth, tienes razo'n.....
El amante deberi'a ser.........un puertorriquen'o!
Con la pasio'n de los espan'oles, el sentido de humor
de los negros y la gentileza del tai'no(pueblo original
de Puerto Rico; somos una mezcla de todo aqui').
Saludos

P.S. No estoy seguro si tuviera suficiente chavos para
pagar por una casa inglesa.... tienes que vivir en una
casita humilde, de madera...
Pero no te preocupes; como dice el poeta alema'n:
Aun sea la choza mas chiquitita, hay espacio para amantes
felices....


----------

