« Guilt By Association | Main | Samuelson vs. The Rankings »
June 28, 2007
Racist
This John Derbyshire post has to be read to be believed. Reading about a school shooting, Derbyshire comments, "[This is] one of those stories that, if read by a visiting Martian, would deliver only half the necessary information."
The missing half of the story? The school is largely black.
You know, I never read a single story on Columbine or the UVA shootings and thought to myself, "that's pretty informative, but I'm entirely adrift until I learn the ethnic breakdown of the school." Derbyshire, evidently, does. "Reading stories like this," he says, "I have got into the habit of checking the GreatSchools database for student ethnicity breakdown."
There's no snark at the end of this post. No jokes to lighten it. The dude is a racist, and The National Review be ashamed of his presence.
June 28, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Is he then arguing for greater integration of the schools by taunting Brown v. Board of Ed, or just pointing out that he's happy that it failed so 'undesireables' are walled off.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 28, 2007 12:19:10 PM
Derbyshire reminds me of a crankly old grandpa, so I don't feel he's particularly threatening, racism and all. The odd thing is that he has a chinese wife, so he's not a white supremacist in the traditional sense.
Posted by: Korha | Jun 28, 2007 12:37:16 PM
Korha,
there has always been a strain of racism that is distinct from the skinhead "hate the n****" variety. Asians have always been on both sides of the superiority divide. Japanese were "honorary aryans" when they were allies of the Nazis, and honorary whites in South Africa. Anyways, Derbyshire's racism is not your grandfather's cranky racism its a specifically *british* colonial racism where railing against the wogs over whiskey and sodas brought by your submissive wife (of whatever race) goes way, way, way back.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jun 28, 2007 12:43:52 PM
Sure thing, Korha---there couldn't be any racial politics underlying his marriage to an Asian woman (or perhaps he calls her his "Oriental flower").
But exactly what Ezra said. NR ought to be embarrassed by this. Thing is, Derbyshire sometimes strikes me as amusing or refreshingly honest for the Cornerites. And yet there's this episode, which is the sort of thing that occasionally inspires me to conclude that this whole red state/blue state culture war is only going to end in a giant machete fight....
Posted by: Jack Roy | Jun 28, 2007 12:44:38 PM
What makes you think that the National Review is capable of shame? They've been fucking telling you that they aren't at least 60-80 times a day with nearly every single posting on The Corner, right?
Posted by: norbizness | Jun 28, 2007 12:54:29 PM
If NR were to be embarassed by crap like this, where would idiots like KLo, Jonah Lucianne, Ponnuru, etc. find a platform to write their idiotic ramblings?
Posted by: gregor | Jun 28, 2007 12:59:12 PM
Derbyshire has always been a racist. Before he came it NR, that's what he was known for, "scientific racist" agitprop. One can only conclude that that's why they hired him. In any event, he's far from being outside the tradition of NR on the subject.
Is anyone surprised that the racist current in the mainstream US right still is robust?
Posted by: K | Jun 28, 2007 1:05:23 PM
Is he then arguing for greater integration of the schools by taunting Brown v. Board of Ed, or just pointing out that he's happy that it failed so 'undesireables' are walled off.
Posted by: Mike
Ahhh, your second guess kinda makes sense. I was all set to write that his post is just plain incoherent — the school in question is practically segregated, according to the chart he found, so it seemed like he thought Brown is what created segregation instead of ending it or nothing less than 100.00 percent segregation would do or something bizarre like that.
Posted by: Cyrus | Jun 28, 2007 1:08:05 PM
Derbyshire has stated: "I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one."
Nothing new.
Posted by: sangfroid826 | Jun 28, 2007 1:15:55 PM
His racism aside (and it's undeniable), the piece is also nonsensical. How does the presence (and, undoubtedly from his point of view, failure to create good citizens) of a predominantly-black school *discredit* school integration? If Brown v. Board had never happened there'd be plenty more all- or predominantly-black schools *just like the one he's scorning.* How then would things be better from his perspective?
As I've been typing this I see Mike and Cyrus have probably solved it: He's not mocking Brown, he's reveling in its failure.
Posted by: Ryan | Jun 28, 2007 1:16:05 PM
I like to think of National Review Racism (TM) as second-stage racism. It's not always the blatant "Blacks are inferior to whites." That's first-stage racism, and it's pretty universally condemned in the Western world (except in the Andrew-Sullivan-heralded "Bell Curve"). National Review Racism (TM) is "Blacks generally cause the problems in society, and those who are 'politically correct' ignore this at their peril."
Second-stage racism is generally A-OK in right-wing and all-white circles. I've heard it mentioned at country clubs, on talk radio, etc. Not only that, second-stage racism is far more damaging, because it presupposes, "Well, white people aren't causing the 'problem,' so what can white people do about it?"
So back to Derbyshire, he apparently is in the "habit" of checking out the racial make-up of school violence for ... what reason exactly? Because he wants to see if he should care. And he doesn't. So he says, "Boy, that school-integration thing worked out great, didn't it?" (a.k.a. "Nuthin' I can do about it!")
Posted by: Media Glutton | Jun 28, 2007 1:22:33 PM
Anyways, Derbyshire's racism is not your grandfather's cranky racism its a specifically *british* colonial racism where railing against the wogs over whiskey and sodas brought by your submissive wife (of whatever race) goes way, way, way back.
Indeed. His memsahib is Chinese. And yes, he's reminiscent of the stereotypical retired brigadier who writes into the Telegraph from Eastbourne to complain about how it was much better when we ruled those fuzzy-wuzzies.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jun 28, 2007 1:31:21 PM
"UVA shootings"
Ezra, if you're going to live on the east coast, next to the Commonwealth of Virginia, you've got to learn some basic facts. Virginia Tech is not UVa. And its UVa, not UVA.
Posted by: ostap | Jun 28, 2007 1:38:10 PM
Derbyshire's explanation:
Ramesh: You are of course right. I was only making the point, clumsily perhaps, that ruling against de jure segregation, while good and necessary, left us with a depressing amount of de facto segregation. And that we are far less keen to talk about (because we really have no clue what to do about) the de facto, than the de jure.(And the other point that major newspapers have the utmost difficulty reporting racial conflicts—which is plainly what the larger Manhattan Beach brouhaha is—as racial conflicts. The Post article doesn't mention race. You have to go digging. Which is what I did. Why not just tell us what's going on?)
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 28, 2007 1:42:08 PM
I've read the Derb's post and his supposed explanation and I am still confused as to what point he was trying to make except for the obvious "black people are dangerous" rightwing fear mongering. As far as I can tell from the Post story both the victim and the shooter were black unless there has been a significant increase in white membersip of the Bloods and Crips.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Jun 28, 2007 2:02:09 PM
Did the Derb bother to check the racial makeup of say Columbine High School? Probably not.
NR has a long and embarrassing history or racism and apologetics for same. Look at some of their editorials in the early 60s.
Derbyshire has a self-admittedly tribal view of the world that is incredibly anachronistic to most of us. He reminds me of an English friend of mine who used to say (jokingly) that "wog begins at Calais."
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Jun 28, 2007 2:17:53 PM
His points: integration has largely failed to happen despite Brown, and the press routinely shies away from pointing out racial aspects of stories such as the conflict over security at the beach.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 28, 2007 2:21:06 PM
Good post, but the VA shootings were at Virgina Tech, not UVA.
Posted by: beckya57 | Jun 28, 2007 2:40:23 PM
His racism aside (and it's undeniable), the piece is also nonsensical.
It's further nonsensical because THE INCIDENT DIDN'T OCCUR AT SCHOOL.
Posted by: James F. Elliott | Jun 28, 2007 2:40:44 PM
He is probably right that one of the effects of re-thinking Americans' use of language in the 1980s and 1990s (what was quickly and condescendingly dubbed the "political correctness" movement) was to stop mentioning race as much as in the past. An assumption was made that race was not an important factor in most instances and that bringing it up tended to reinforce unjustifiable prejudices. It's a frustrating tendency if you believe race is indeed an important factor in the event being reported, or even if you want to have the ability to _consider_ whether it was important. The problem, though, is that the reporting of race is usually biased (in a statistical, not ideological, sense)--black criminals/suspects/perpetrators are identified by race, but white ones aren't. The reader is bound to conclude that blacks are crooks. The informal norm became "don't report race."
Derbyshire's decision to highlight race in this particular instance is a return to the biased reporting of the past under the guise of "telling the whole story."
Posted by: Bob | Jun 28, 2007 2:47:59 PM
Some are assuming that the part of the story Derbyshire thought called for checking out the race connection was the shooting, but his explanation implies that it was the conflict over beach security.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 28, 2007 2:57:05 PM
As James Eliot points out, the shooting wasn't a "school shooting" at all. The sole connection was a mention that one of the teens involved went to a particular school. Based on nothing more than this, Derbyshire felt compelled to hunt out the racial makeup of the school.
The victim (it says in the earlier, print, edition) was a student at Samuel J. Tilden HS. Reading stories like this, I have got into the habit of checking the GreatSchools database for student ethnicity breakdown. Here's the answer for Samuel J. Tilden HS. Boy, that school-integration thing worked out great, didn't it? Thank goodness for Brown v. Board of Ed.!
That is the final paragraph. Now exactly how this amounts to "...half the necessary information.", which was his initial premise, is difficult to see. Particuarly since he no where suggests that the issue is "beach security(community hostility)" as opposed to say gang violence, subway security or the decline of public education.
In short, he didn't reference any of the issues that he belatedly claims were actually at the heart of his first post. If his explanation is to be believed, "clumsy" is the mildest adjective that applies. Rank incompetence would seem more appropriate.
Perhaps Derbyshire should concentrate on making certain that all the "necessary information" is in his own posts.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jun 28, 2007 4:38:59 PM
And didya catch Derb's "poetry" in The Corner today, which suggests the bombing of Washington D.C.? It's since been taken down. Trying to find it cached. Anybody else see it?
Posted by: nikkos | Jun 28, 2007 4:56:52 PM
Not to take this too OT, but I work at UVA, and I see both UVA and UVa used. In any case, it's not VT. They're our football rivals, and practically half the town is paralyzed by traffic the day of the big game each year.
Posted by: Karla | Jun 28, 2007 4:59:04 PM
Some are assuming that the part of the story Derbyshire thought called for checking out the race connection was the shooting, but his explanation implies that it was the conflict over beach security.
Then what exactly is the purpose of his reference to Brown v. Board of Ed?
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Jun 28, 2007 5:03:59 PM
I found some record of Debryshire's pro-terror-bombing poetry via Technorati, but the links to his original are now all dead: http://technorati.com/posts/tag/john+derbyshire
Sorry if this is OT but it seems germane given the discussion of Derb's general psychosis.
Posted by: nikkos | Jun 28, 2007 5:13:20 PM
Then what exactly is the purpose of his reference to Brown v. Board of Ed?
That integration has largely failed to happen despite Brown. He had two points, not necessarily related except by the coincidence of the point about racial tensions leading to the side note about integration.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 28, 2007 5:14:24 PM
That integration has largely failed to happen despite Brown. He had two points, not necessarily related except by the coincidence of the point about racial tensions leading to the side note about integration.
The two aren't particularly related are they? And those racial tensions, are they the fault of the black kids who just want to go to the beach or the rich folks who don't like them soiling their nice neighborhood? Is he implying that all the black kids should be excluded from the beach because there was a gang-related incident on the train? Basically his whole point was "black kids are scary so let's keep them penned up in their own neighborhoods."
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Jun 28, 2007 5:25:23 PM
That integration has largely failed to happen despite Brown. He had two points, not necessarily related except by the coincidence of the point about racial tensions leading to the side note about integration.
Points which are not addressed inhis original post.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jun 28, 2007 5:27:04 PM
Derb's got a sneering two-fer going here:
1) Those liberals can't do anything right and have utterly failed in their naive attempts to end segregation;
2) and thank God they have failed, because otherwise we caucasians would be exposed even more to these undesirables.
As repulsive as his alleged points are here, I think I'd at least rather read this noxious nonsense than his wistful pining for teen-age girls.
Posted by: Woody Bombay | Jun 28, 2007 5:42:40 PM
And those racial tensions, are they the fault of the black kids who just want to go to the beach or the rich folks who don't like them soiling their nice neighborhood?
I expect he intends the latter.
Is he implying that all the black kids should be excluded from the beach because there was a gang-related incident on the train?
I don't think so.
Basically his whole point was "black kids are scary so let's keep them penned up in their own neighborhoods."
The opposite. He labels the continuing predominance of segregation "depressing."
thank God they have failed, because otherwise we caucasians would be exposed even more to these undesirables.
Not what he says.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 28, 2007 5:56:40 PM
Note that Sanpete bases his defense of Derbyshire on the latter's "explanation" rather than the original post. Necessary, since Derbyshire's original post doesn't support his subsequent excuses.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jun 28, 2007 6:05:44 PM
Doesn't "support" them? It's consistent with them.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 28, 2007 6:16:14 PM
About 50 posts later the same result will occur as it has now. Sanpete will have convinced himself of something that no one could have known based on a plain reading of what is written. Will W.B. suceed? I am betting on his eventual frustration and giving up because of Sanpete's stamina for making it as he goes.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 28, 2007 6:17:57 PM
Doesn't "support" them? It's consistent with them.
Only if we redefine "consistent" as "doesn't mention them at all."
Akaison, it all depends on what constitutes success.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jun 28, 2007 6:28:21 PM
As I said, they're consistent, by any dictionary definition.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 28, 2007 6:43:26 PM
As I said, they're consistent, by any dictionary definition.
Really? Then post an example, preferably Oxford or Webster's, and we can test your assertion. It will be interesting to see if either of them define "consistent" as the mere absence of direct contradiction.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jun 28, 2007 6:54:54 PM
sucess to sanpete WB. you two are at odds as to yoru world view. you like me require evidence. sanpete does not. in a battle between nothing and something, nothing wins by default because it requires no effort. he's having you jump through hoops whereas he does nothing but sits back and argue with his contortions of languange and meaning. the left fails because it doesn't understand energy is finite.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 28, 2007 6:59:06 PM
This is basic logic, WBR. You're being silly.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 28, 2007 7:00:29 PM
This is basic logic, WBR. You're being silly.
Translation: Sanpete isn't actually certain what the "dictionary definition" of "consistent" is and is afraid to look it up.
Akaison, you have a valid point. However, it never hurts to point out the poverty of a perspective, if you have the time to spare.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jun 28, 2007 7:11:37 PM
Derbyshire is a "scientific racist", meaning he views blacks as inherently inferior and that all the social problems that plague America are, for the most part, a direct result of their genetic shortcoming.
I've been following him for a while and there's absolutely nothing new about his racism. He posts often about new discoveries in genetics/biology, often adding that soon we all find out truths that liberals won't like--i.e, science will discover that dark people are beyond help.
He has lavished praise on the White Supremacist website "american renaissance" as being the only source where one can get truth about racial issues.
In short, he's as race obsessed as his recent post would suggest and has the most hostile contempt for people of color.
Posted by: Abe | Jun 28, 2007 7:13:01 PM
Edit: " meaning he views blacks as inherently inferior and that all the social problems that plague black America are, for the most part, a direct result of their genetic shortcoming."
Posted by: Abe | Jun 28, 2007 7:15:12 PM
"Korha,
there has always been a strain of racism that is distinct from the skinhead "hate the n****" variety. Asians have always been on both sides of the superiority divide. Japanese were "honorary aryans" when they were allies of the Nazis, and honorary whites in South Africa. Anyways, Derbyshire's racism is not your grandfather's cranky racism its a specifically *british* colonial racism where railing against the wogs over whiskey and sodas brought by your submissive wife (of whatever race) goes way, way, way back."
Ah, yes. Good context.
Posted by: Korha | Jun 28, 2007 11:46:41 PM
Media Glutton, your descrption of second-stage racism sounds exactly like the anti-black racism of the average black conservative.
Posted by: Plantsman1 | Jun 29, 2007 3:12:12 AM
ruling against de jure segregation, while good and necessary, left us with a depressing amount of de facto segregation. And that we are far less keen to talk about (because we really have no clue what to do about) the de facto, than the de jure
Odd that he should say this, just as Bush's new Supreme Court justices lead the Court to rule that voluntary desegregation is unconstitutional . . .
Posted by: rea | Jun 29, 2007 8:10:07 AM
not that odd all- it's what the Constitution in exile people believe, and it's why the Democrats, if they had any spine, should not have approved alito or the chief justice. this s ct in its move to the far right will be the gift that keeps giving. this is all a prelude.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 10:33:57 AM
Sounds like Derbyshire is saying that Brown v. Board didn't work for this school. And he's right. In this case, the school is not desegregated. The school is 92% racially homogeneous - and maybe 99% depending on the race of the Latino students!
If the gang-member students are representative of the school population, then that is a failure, too. None of us would want to send our children to a school where gangs predominate, whether those gangs are black, white or orange. Derbyshire might be saying something racist, or the rest of us might be so eager to read racism into everything that we end up invidiously patronizing a whole race of people.
Posted by: Chicago | Jun 29, 2007 11:21:46 AM
All which would make sense of this were the reading one could make of what he said OR this was the first time he's had such issues. Sounds like Chicago is one of those people who likes to see a burning cross on the lawn before he will see racism. And even then, he will be saying "I don't see any burning crosses." We can't get you to see what you don't want to see Chicago, and I don't see any reason to play your game of pretending everyone else is wrong in understanding what this person wrote.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 12:28:38 PM
Bush's new Supreme Court justices lead the Court to rule that voluntary desegregation is unconstitutional
Not really what the Court ruled.
I don't see any reason to play your game of pretending everyone else is wrong in understanding what this person wrote.
The majoritarian theory of truth. The explanation Derbyshire gave of what he said made perfect sense. If he's said racist things elsewhere, that's another matter. Though given how people have read what he said this time, I have little confidence in their reports of what he's said in the past.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 29, 2007 1:09:30 PM
The majoritarian theory of truth. The explanation Derbyshire gave of what he said made perfect sense. If he's said racist things elsewhere, that's another matter. Though given how people have read what he said this time, I have little confidence in their reports of what he's said in the past.
An example of putting words into other's mouths in order to distort their argument. Akaison said nothing about the majority determining "truth". What is under discussion is the meaning of what was written. Language is a collective enterprise consisting of a shared understanding of meaning. As such, the general understanding of particular words is both a legitimate and apt consideration. Complaining about majorities determining some abstract notion of "truth" in this context is sheer prattle.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jun 29, 2007 1:25:57 PM
If you are *really* old-school, like me, it's U.-Va.
Please don't be like those who think that Thomas Jefferson *attended* U.-Va. instead of *founding* it. There are lots and lots and lots of Virginia alumni around town. Just poke your head outside your cubicle and shout out.
Wahoowa!
(BTW, that was a good post.)
Posted by: ajw_93 | Jun 29, 2007 2:04:31 PM
Ditto what WB says about meaning. Sanpete you can't just make up or put into place your judgement as to what things mean. I mean, you can, but then you aren't reall engaging in a conversation so much as living in your head.
Ajw- its wahoo-wa. :)
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 2:21:17 PM
you can't just make up or put into place your judgement as to what things mean
Which is why I've referred to what Derbyshire actually said.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 29, 2007 2:27:29 PM
Referring to what he says isn't very useful if you then ignore the meaning of words. In a way, this is the conversation we keep having. We had it the other day with the hit piece on Edwards. Then, as now, you fill in the gaps with what you want to believe it means rather than what it means on its face or as commonly understood. This conversation also reminds me again why I say you are a lawyer's wet dream if he's on the side of having the burden of proving a point true. Probability and weighting never enters your mind. You will accept an argument,a nd make one - n o matter how improbable. That's cool if you aren't interested understanding what people are saying.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 2:38:29 PM
All handwaving, as usual, akaison. You haven't shown anything I've said to be wrong in the least.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 29, 2007 4:03:06 PM
okay sanpete I am not going to waste time on someone like.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 29, 2007 5:04:02 PM
Just as a reminder, here is the Derb's post in full:
In America's Newspaper of Record this morning (p.11 of the print edition), one of those stories that, if read by a visiting Martian, would deliver only half the necessary information:
A Brooklyn high school student was fatally shot on a crowded subway train yesterday by a rival gang member after both had spent the day on the beach, a police source said. Both the shooter and the victim, Trevle Belton, 19, were among 5,000 people who jammed Manhattan Beach yesterday, but it was not known if they had encountered each other there. Manhattan Beach has been embroiled in controversy over how to handle crowds descending on the beach and the ritzy area surrounding it. Belton was returning from the beach yesterday in a subway car jammed with other teens at the time of the shooting at 6:53 p.m....The violence comes amid heated debate about the future of Manhattan Beach after Ronald Biondo, president of Manhattan Beach Community Group, wrote an e-mail to members calling for increased law enforcement and metal detectors to screen beachgoers. It likened young beachgoers to 'thugs.' Biondo later apologized and backed off a proposal to, in effect, privatize the beach. An investigator told The Post that a local radio station had encouraged listeners to swamp the beach yesterday to protest Biondo's statements. Many city high school students also came to celebrate the last day of school...
The victim (it says in the earlier, print, edition) was a student at Samuel J. Tilden HS. Reading stories like this, I have got into the habit of checking the GreatSchools database for student ethnicity breakdown. Here's the answer for Samuel J. Tilden HS. Boy, that school-integration thing worked out great, didn't it? Thank goodness for Brown v. Board of Ed.!
The reasonable reading of this is that he wanted to point out the ethnicity of the victim and shooter to show how dangerous black kids are. Then he realized he needed to dress his racism up a bit and tossed in the last two sentences. School integration has absolutely nothing to do with this story or his reaction to it.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Jun 29, 2007 11:58:47 PM
"The" reasonable reading? Baloney. His own reading of it, which has the advantage of being based on knowledge of what he meant, makes just as much sense. The idea that the last two sentences were intended to dress anything up makes no sense that I can see. They simply raised more questions, which led to the clarification.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 30, 2007 12:29:45 AM
"The" reasonable reading? Baloney. His own reading of it, which has the advantage of being based on knowledge of what he meant, makes just as much sense. The idea that the last two sentences were intended to dress anything up makes no sense that I can see. They simply raised more questions, which led to the clarification.
As ought to be evident by now, there is no rationale so shabby that Sanpete won't embrace it in order to posture as the lone voice of "sensible moderation."
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jun 30, 2007 12:50:43 PM
Lots of handwaving by the usuals.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 30, 2007 2:48:34 PM
Keep spinning there Sanpete. It looks good on you.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Jun 30, 2007 6:10:16 PM
Colonel, why is your claim that a text says something it doesn't say or imply not spinning? I'm just pointing out facts about what Derbyshire has actually said and not said.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 30, 2007 6:20:02 PM
Lots of handwaving by the usuals.
Translation: Anything Sanpete doesn't feel competent to address is "handwaving".
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jun 30, 2007 7:33:22 PM
"Is he then arguing for greater integration of the schools by taunting Brown v. Board of Ed, or just pointing out that he's happy that it failed so 'undesireables' are walled off."
The latter, by his own admission:
"House hunting in the New York suburbs in 1992, my (Chinese-born) wife and I were once sitting in the office of a realtor, an American lady, trying to spell out just what we were looking for. We had no kids at the time, but were moving to the burbs precisely to raise a family. Well, chatting with the realtor, I said that of course we wanted to be in a good school system, one with not too many black kids."
Source: http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/02-28/be_nice_or_well_crush_you
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | Jul 16, 2007 9:44:39 AM
prevedburzhuy
Posted by: kpmadcg | Aug 14, 2007 6:16:31 AM
sonwjzl msbkpaxqe jtnhl wjagblr rcmo tsqoirdn qpoja
Posted by: ukwz ecmuzbtv | Sep 24, 2007 5:47:49 AM
jsxlqvob ageuktnl xlvs btvxhkqpl meqprv aheizjpt vfwst http://www.fyvao.vaklq.com
Posted by: klrwsect jigxktz | Sep 24, 2007 5:48:23 AM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: judy | Oct 8, 2007 8:22:50 AM
