Washington & Jefferson Statue Get Pulled Down

[Salus Maior]

Americans, generally speaking.

citation needed

The Founding Fathers established a flexible system which could be amended over time and allow for the further extension of rights in the future, when society was amenable to that.

They also established a system of separated powers and all those checks and balances taken for granted which prevented anyone from pulling a Napoleon and prevents would-be tyrants like Trump from establishing a dictatorship.

At the time itself, America generally had a better quality of life than other countries, and overall was a great deal freer, as far as freemen/women were concerned.

Overall, I'd say that's a pretty good job for everyone concerned. Of course, they did not create an immediately perfect society so I guess you can condemn them for that, as well as every nation the world over who has not accomplished that either.

[Salus Maior]

We had the articles of confederation first, so we would still be a country even if that didn't happen. We would just have a different government structure.

I know. I'm an antifed.

You and Confederates have something in common, then. I'm sure you're pleased.

[An-Tanwir]

I don't think the characterization of the founding fathers as "great men with some character flaws" is justified. The founding fathers weren't seeking freedom for all people, they were seeking freedom for the merchant class. They only wanted land-owning white males to vote.

And let's not pretend that it was "just a different time." Blacks and whites were first legally segregated by the Virginia Slave Code in 1705, about 27 years before George Washington's birth. White supremacy was as age-old to Washington as the Clinton presidency is to a baby born this year.

And even if it "was a different time", the abolitionist movement was strong in 1776. Washington and Jefferson likely argued with abolitionists all the time and, obviously, weren't convinced that slavery was bad. These men understood taxation (without representation) as a violation of human rights so glaring that they sent around 7k poorly-trained civilians to their deaths in order to abolish it, and yet would not consider freeing their own slaves, let alone the slaves of the whole nation.

Washington and Jefferson did not fight for me, as I'm not a landowning white male. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera fought for me.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I don't think the characterization of the founding fathers as "great men with some character flaws" is justified. The founding fathers weren't seeking freedom for all people, they were seeking freedom for the merchant class. They only wanted land-owning white males to vote.

And let's not pretend that it was "just a different time." Blacks and whites were first legally segregated by the Virginia Slave Code in 1705, about 27 years before George Washington's birth. White supremacy was as age-old to Washington as the Clinton presidency is to a baby born this year.

And even if it "was a different time", the abolitionist movement was strong in 1776. Washington and Jefferson likely argued with abolitionists all the time and, obviously, weren't convinced that slavery was bad. These men understood taxation (without representation) as a violation of human rights so glaring that they sent around 7k poorly-trained civilians to their deaths in order to abolish it, and yet would not consider freeing their own slaves, let alone the slaves of the whole nation.

Washington and Jefferson did not fight for me, as I'm not a landowning white male. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera fought for me.

Abolitionism was not that strong in 1776, though I would expect a marxist-leninist like you to try to find any excuse to hate the U.S. anyway. I'm sure you'll hold your commie leaders to a much lower standard.

[An-Tanwir]

I don't think the characterization of the founding fathers as "great men with some character flaws" is justified. The founding fathers weren't seeking freedom for all people, they were seeking freedom for the merchant class. They only wanted land-owning white males to vote.

And let's not pretend that it was "just a different time." Blacks and whites were first legally segregated by the Virginia Slave Code in 1705, about 27 years before George Washington's birth. White supremacy was as age-old to Washington as the Clinton presidency is to a baby born this year.

And even if it "was a different time", the abolitionist movement was strong in 1776. Washington and Jefferson likely argued with abolitionists all the time and, obviously, weren't convinced that slavery was bad. These men understood taxation (without representation) as a violation of human rights so glaring that they sent around 7k poorly-trained civilians to their deaths in order to abolish it, and yet would not consider freeing their own slaves, let alone the slaves of the whole nation.

Washington and Jefferson did not fight for me, as I'm not a landowning white male. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera fought for me.

Abolitionism was not that strong in 1776, though I would expect a marxist-leninist like you to try to find any excuse to hate the U.S. anyway. I'm sure you'll hold your commie leaders to a much lower standard.

I don't need an excuse to hate the US. The original constitution, treatment of natives, oppression of queer folx, war crimes, etc. are enough for me. Hell, even if the US was a paradise for all peoples, Operation Northwoods alone being considered is a good reason.

And I'm an ML, not a tankie. I only think most of what Stalin did was good, not all

[Salus Maior]

I don't think the characterization of the founding fathers as "great men with some character flaws" is justified. The founding fathers weren't seeking freedom for all people, they were seeking freedom for the merchant class. They only wanted land-owning white males to vote.

And let's not pretend that it was "just a different time." Blacks and whites were first legally segregated by the Virginia Slave Code in 1705, about 27 years before George Washington's birth. White supremacy was as age-old to Washington as the Clinton presidency is to a baby born this year.

And even if it "was a different time", the abolitionist movement was strong in 1776. Washington and Jefferson likely argued with abolitionists all the time and, obviously, weren't convinced that slavery was bad. These men understood taxation (without representation) as a violation of human rights so glaring that they sent around 7k poorly-trained civilians to their deaths in order to abolish it, and yet would not consider freeing their own slaves, let alone the slaves of the whole nation.

Washington and Jefferson did not fight for me, as I'm not a landowning white male. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera fought for me.

Yeah, among Quakers. A minority whose reasons for immediate emancipation was religious, and so was not shared by...well, most of America at the time. Immediate emancipation wasn't popular at the time, and it would take a couple decades for that idea to grab widespread interest.

As for the notion that the Founding Fathers "sent" the common people to fight for them is laughable and demonstrably false. In many ways, the independence movement was grassroots, especially in the beginning when the upper classes were still agonizing about whether they could compromise with Britain. This can be demonstrated by the opening battles of the Revolution at Lexington and Concord which was conducted by spontaneous militias not commanded by actual officers nor Congress. And before that, during the Powder Alarm, rumor had spread that the British had bombarded Boston in retaliation to the Tea Party and approximately 10-30 thousand New Englanders had armed themselves and formed militias and marched to Boston. Again, without commands from the upper class. This was a popular movement.

[Salus Maior]

Abolitionism was not that strong in 1776, though I would expect a marxist-leninist like you to try to find any excuse to hate the U.S. anyway. I'm sure you'll hold your commie leaders to a much lower standard.

I don't need an excuse to hate the US. The original constitution, treatment of natives, oppression of queer folx, war crimes, etc. are enough for me. Hell, even if the US was a paradise for all peoples, Operation Northwoods alone being considered is a good reason.

And I'm an ML, not a tankie. I only think most of what Stalin did was good, not all

Well, I imagine you hate a great deal of places then. Oppression of non-traditional sexual orientations, war crimes, treating certain ethnic groups unfairly, etc. is something that's shared by a lot of worldwide cultures.

What's even the point of hating a nation's history? It's not as if you hating it actually matters in any form. It is what it is, it can't be changed.

[An-Tanwir]

I don't think the characterization of the founding fathers as "great men with some character flaws" is justified. The founding fathers weren't seeking freedom for all people, they were seeking freedom for the merchant class. They only wanted land-owning white males to vote.

And let's not pretend that it was "just a different time." Blacks and whites were first legally segregated by the Virginia Slave Code in 1705, about 27 years before George Washington's birth. White supremacy was as age-old to Washington as the Clinton presidency is to a baby born this year.

And even if it "was a different time", the abolitionist movement was strong in 1776. Washington and Jefferson likely argued with abolitionists all the time and, obviously, weren't convinced that slavery was bad. These men understood taxation (without representation) as a violation of human rights so glaring that they sent around 7k poorly-trained civilians to their deaths in order to abolish it, and yet would not consider freeing their own slaves, let alone the slaves of the whole nation.

Washington and Jefferson did not fight for me, as I'm not a landowning white male. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera fought for me.

Yeah, among Quakers. A minority whose reasons for immediate emancipation was religious, and so was not shared by...well, most of America at the time. Immediate emancipation wasn't popular at the time, and it would take a couple decades for that idea to grab widespread interest.

As for the notion that the Founding Fathers "sent" the common people to fight for them is laughable and demonstrably false. In many ways, the independence movement was grassroots, especially in the beginning when the upper classes were still agonizing about whether they could compromise with Britain. This can be demonstrated by the opening battles of the Revolution at Lexington and Concord which was conducted by spontaneous militias not commanded by actual officers nor Congress. And before that, during the Powder Alarm, rumor had spread that the British had bombarded Boston in retaliation to the Tea Party and approximately 10-30 thousand New Englanders had armed themselves and formed militias and marched to Boston. Again, without commands from the upper class. This was a popular movement.

A popular movement spurred by upper-class ideology, specifically liberalism. I'd argue that, in the middle ages, most uprisings to replace one lord with another were popular movements. Neither those movements nor the American revolution culminated in the liberation of all people from oppression, rather, they liberated them from a particular oppressor.

[The Reformed American Republic]

[Redacted]

[An-Tanwir]

I don't need an excuse to hate the US. The original constitution, treatment of natives, oppression of queer folx, war crimes, etc. are enough for me. Hell, even if the US was a paradise for all peoples, Operation Northwoods alone being considered is a good reason.

And I'm an ML, not a tankie. I only think most of what Stalin did was good, not all

Well, I imagine you hate a great deal of places then. Oppression of non-traditional sexual orientations, war crimes, treating certain ethnic groups unfairly, etc. is something that's shared by a lot of worldwide cultures.

What's even the point of hating a nation's history? It's not as if you hating it actually matters in any form. It is what it is, it can't be changed.

Yes, I do hate a lot of places. I never implied that America is at all special in its oppression. Just because a lot of people are doing it doesn't make it right.

History can't be changed, but the future can, and the future is affected greatly by the past. We aren't talking about building a time machine to abolish slavery, we're talking about taking down statues of terrible people.

[Cisairse]

Yeah, among Quakers. A minority whose reasons for immediate emancipation was religious, and so was not shared by...well, most of America at the time. Immediate emancipation wasn't popular at the time, and it would take a couple decades for that idea to grab widespread interest.

As for the notion that the Founding Fathers "sent" the common people to fight for them is laughable and demonstrably false. In many ways, the independence movement was grassroots, especially in the beginning when the upper classes were still agonizing about whether they could compromise with Britain. This can be demonstrated by the opening battles of the Revolution at Lexington and Concord which was conducted by spontaneous militias not commanded by actual officers nor Congress. And before that, during the Powder Alarm, rumor had spread that the British had bombarded Boston in retaliation to the Tea Party and approximately 10-30 thousand New Englanders had armed themselves and formed militias and marched to Boston. Again, without commands from the upper class. This was a popular movement.

A popular movement spurred by upper-class ideology, specifically liberalism. I'd argue that, in the middle ages, most uprisings to replace one lord with another were popular movements. Neither those movements nor the American revolution culminated in the liberation of all people from oppression, rather, they liberated them from a particular oppressor.

Liberalism was popular with laborers and owners of manufacture as well. The Revolution was brought about mostly on the backs of who you and I would now call the petit bourgeois who saw liberalism as the gateway to freedom from feudalism. The Revolution was a bourgeois one, but let's not pretend that the bourgeois were the upper class in 1775.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, among Quakers. A minority whose reasons for immediate emancipation was religious, and so was not shared by...well, most of America at the time. Immediate emancipation wasn't popular at the time, and it would take a couple decades for that idea to grab widespread interest.

As for the notion that the Founding Fathers "sent" the common people to fight for them is laughable and demonstrably false. In many ways, the independence movement was grassroots, especially in the beginning when the upper classes were still agonizing about whether they could compromise with Britain. This can be demonstrated by the opening battles of the Revolution at Lexington and Concord which was conducted by spontaneous militias not commanded by actual officers nor Congress. And before that, during the Powder Alarm, rumor had spread that the British had bombarded Boston in retaliation to the Tea Party and approximately 10-30 thousand New Englanders had armed themselves and formed militias and marched to Boston. Again, without commands from the upper class. This was a popular movement.

A popular movement spurred by upper-class ideology, specifically liberalism. I'd argue that, in the middle ages, most uprisings to replace one lord with another were popular movements. Neither those movements nor the American revolution culminated in the liberation of all people from oppression, rather, they liberated them from a particular oppressor.

Revolutions don't typically culminate in the liberation of all people from oppression. Mostly, it culminates in the deaths and deprivations of thousands and millions as it did in Russia, France, Haiti, Cambodia, Spain, Germany, etc.etc.etc. Frankly, I think it's foolish to think that anything good and worthwhile comes from a revolution. It's pure naivete and power fantasy.

That being said, America's revolution was a great deal better in that regard. Mostly because it happened at the social level and the local government didn't collapse and was allowed to form a new system through mostly peaceful means.

[Cisairse]

A popular movement spurred by upper-class ideology, specifically liberalism. I'd argue that, in the middle ages, most uprisings to replace one lord with another were popular movements. Neither those movements nor the American revolution culminated in the liberation of all people from oppression, rather, they liberated them from a particular oppressor.

Revolutions don't typically culminate in the liberation of all people from oppression. Mostly, it culminates in the deaths and deprivations of thousands and millions as it did in Russia, France, Haiti, Cambodia, Spain, Germany, etc.etc.etc. Frankly, I think it's foolish to think that anything good and worthwhile comes from a revolution. It's pure naivete and power fantasy.

That being said, America's revolution was a great deal better in that regard. Mostly because it happened at the social level and the local government didn't collapse and was allowed to form a new system through mostly peaceful means.

Adamsian revolutionary theory aside, it's quite silly to immediately follow a claim of "it's foolish to think that anything good and worthwhile comes from a revolution" with "America's revolution was a great deal better."

[Salus Maior]

Well, I imagine you hate a great deal of places then. Oppression of non-traditional sexual orientations, war crimes, treating certain ethnic groups unfairly, etc. is something that's shared by a lot of worldwide cultures.

What's even the point of hating a nation's history? It's not as if you hating it actually matters in any form. It is what it is, it can't be changed.

Yes, I do hate a lot of places. I never implied that America is at all special in its oppression. Just because a lot of people are doing it doesn't make it right.

History can't be changed, but the future can, and the future is affected greatly by the past. We aren't talking about building a time machine to abolish slavery, we're talking about taking down statues of terrible people.

I'm not saying it is right. I'm recognizing that what good we have comes from history, just as much as the bad we have now comes from history.

Slavery isn't a problem anymore in the U.S. And the reasoning for that is because people like Jefferson and Washington wrote into the Constitution the ideas of equality and freedom.

[Salus Maior]

Revolutions don't typically culminate in the liberation of all people from oppression. Mostly, it culminates in the deaths and deprivations of thousands and millions as it did in Russia, France, Haiti, Cambodia, Spain, Germany, etc.etc.etc. Frankly, I think it's foolish to think that anything good and worthwhile comes from a revolution. It's pure naivete and power fantasy.

That being said, America's revolution was a great deal better in that regard. Mostly because it happened at the social level and the local government didn't collapse and was allowed to form a new system through mostly peaceful means.

Adamsian revolutionary theory aside, it's quite silly to immediately follow a claim of "it's foolish to think that anything good and worthwhile comes from a revolution" with "America's revolution was a great deal better."

I could call it an independence movement instead if that's better. But that would be ignoring the major cultural shift which accompanied it.

I also said "typically". America is an outlier, for the reason I mentioned which was that the Americans didn't topple their own government and try to build it from scratch.

[An-Tanwir]

let's not pretend that the bourgeois were the upper class in 1775.

This. Thanks for the correction.

Neither did any of the Leninist revolutions. They replaced oppressors too.

Idk, free healthcare, universal suffrage, and worker ownership of industry, and transformation from a feudal agrarian country to a nuclear superpower in 30 years doesn't sound that oppressive to me.

Unless you're talking about the oppression of czarist terrorists, anarchist terrorists, opportunistic grain-hoarders, and fascist collaborators, in which case, yes, leninists absolutely oppressed those people and I see no problem with that.

Actually, one more group got oppressed, and that was other groups of Marxist-Leninists (but trust me, if you were trying to run a nation and you had some trot blabbering at you 24/7, you'd purge the party too )

Slavery isn't a problem anymore in the U.S. And the reasoning for that is because people like Jefferson and Washington wrote into the Constitution the ideas of equality and freedom.

Actually, slavery isn't a problem anymore due to the actions of brave liberators, black and white, giving up their lives in a war.

[The Reformed American Republic]

let's not pretend that the bourgeois were the upper class in 1775.

This. Thanks for the correction.

Neither did any of the Leninist revolutions. They replaced oppressors too.

Idk, free healthcare, universal suffrage, and worker ownership of industry, and transformation from a feudal agrarian country to a nuclear superpower in 30 years doesn't sound that oppressive to me.

Unless you're talking about the oppression of czarist terrorists, anarchist terrorists, opportunistic grain-hoarders, and fascist collaborators, in which case, yes, leninists absolutely oppressed those people and I see no problem with that.

Actually, one more group got oppressed, and that was other groups of Marxist-Leninists (but trust me, if you were trying to run a nation and you had some trot blabbering at you 24/7, you'd purge the party too )

Slavery isn't a problem anymore in the U.S. And the reasoning for that is because people like Jefferson and Washington wrote into the Constitution the ideas of equality and freedom.

Actually, slavery isn't a problem anymore due to the actions of brave liberators, black and white, giving up their lives in a war.

Gulags, famines, and mass purges and murders came with that too. And no, it wasn't merely aimed at guilty people. All that is acceptable because it's your team.

Edit: homosexuality was even a crime there too.

[Salus Maior]

let's not pretend that the bourgeois were the upper class in 1775.

This. Thanks for the correction.

Neither did any of the Leninist revolutions. They replaced oppressors too.

Idk, free healthcare, universal suffrage, and worker ownership of industry, and transformation from a feudal agrarian country to a nuclear superpower in 30 years doesn't sound that oppressive to me.

Unless you're talking about the oppression of czarist terrorists, anarchist terrorists, opportunistic grain-hoarders, and fascist collaborators, in which case, yes, leninists absolutely oppressed those people and I see no problem with that.

Actually, one more group got oppressed, and that was other groups of Marxist-Leninists (but trust me, if you were trying to run a nation and you had some trot blabbering at you 24/7, you'd purge the party too )

Slavery isn't a problem anymore in the U.S. And the reasoning for that is because people like Jefferson and Washington wrote into the Constitution the ideas of equality and freedom.

Actually, slavery isn't a problem anymore due to the actions of brave liberators, black and white, giving up their lives in a war.

Oh wonderful, a Tankie. Right up there with the Wehraboos in insufferability.

Who were inspired by the ideas in question. Funny how American revolutionaries were apparently "spurred on" by elitist liberal ideology, yet Union soldiers were "brave liberators" with no such descriptors. Consistency and intellectual honesty I suppose isn't going to be a running theme in this discussion.

[The Black Forrest]

Ok. I admit to not having read it. I will add to my list of things to read.

Vidal is an excellent writer, it is well worth the read.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_(novel)

Thanks. Now on my amazon list

[An-Tanwir]

Gulags, famines, and mass purges and murders came with that too. And no, it wasn't merely aimed at guilty people.

The gulag system was actually super progressive even by today's standards, including communal living, two weeks vacation, etc. Even if they weren't, at its peak, the gulags incarcerated fewer people than the czarist regime, and fewer people than the United States. Don't pretend we don't have political prisoners and purges in the US, especially with all those Ferguson protesters "committing suicide".

Also, famines are natural occurrences for non-industrialized agricultural civilizations, and the famine you're referring to was made worse by the hoarding of grain by the wealthy, and subsequent burning of said grain when they realized it would be redistributed.

[The Reformed American Republic]

This. Thanks for the correction.



Idk, free healthcare, universal suffrage, and worker ownership of industry, and transformation from a feudal agrarian country to a nuclear superpower in 30 years doesn't sound that oppressive to me.

Unless you're talking about the oppression of czarist terrorists, anarchist terrorists, opportunistic grain-hoarders, and fascist collaborators, in which case, yes, leninists absolutely oppressed those people and I see no problem with that.

Actually, one more group got oppressed, and that was other groups of Marxist-Leninists (but trust me, if you were trying to run a nation and you had some trot blabbering at you 24/7, you'd purge the party too )



Actually, slavery isn't a problem anymore due to the actions of brave liberators, black and white, giving up their lives in a war.

Oh wonderful, a Tankie. Right up there with the Wehraboos in insufferability.

Who were inspired by the ideas in question. Funny how American revolutionaries were apparently "spurred on" by elitist liberal ideology, yet Union soldiers were "brave liberators" with no such descriptors. Consistency and intellectual honesty I suppose isn't going to be a running theme in this discussion.

I'm no longer engaging in the discussion as a result.

[An-Tanwir]

This. Thanks for the correction.



Idk, free healthcare, universal suffrage, and worker ownership of industry, and transformation from a feudal agrarian country to a nuclear superpower in 30 years doesn't sound that oppressive to me.

Unless you're talking about the oppression of czarist terrorists, anarchist terrorists, opportunistic grain-hoarders, and fascist collaborators, in which case, yes, leninists absolutely oppressed those people and I see no problem with that.

Actually, one more group got oppressed, and that was other groups of Marxist-Leninists (but trust me, if you were trying to run a nation and you had some trot blabbering at you 24/7, you'd purge the party too )



Actually, slavery isn't a problem anymore due to the actions of brave liberators, black and white, giving up their lives in a war.

Oh wonderful, a Tankie. Right up there with the Wehraboos in insufferability.

Who were inspired by the ideas in question. Funny how American revolutionaries were apparently "spurred on" by elitist liberal ideology, yet Union soldiers were "brave liberators" with no such descriptors. Consistency and intellectual honesty I suppose isn't going to be a running theme in this discussion.

The only requirements for being a "brave liberator" are being 1. brave and 2. a liberator, which the union soldiers most definitely were. The Union side most definitely was not a popular uprising spurred on by ideology, they were drafted. I'm sure a good deal of them were pro-slavery even. That doesn't invalidate their liberating actions. I'd suggest you take everything I say at face value rather than reading into stuff.

[Esotyrica]

let's not pretend that the bourgeois were the upper class in 1775.

This. Thanks for the correction.

Neither did any of the Leninist revolutions. They replaced oppressors too.

Idk, free healthcare, universal suffrage, and worker ownership of industry, and transformation from a feudal agrarian country to a nuclear superpower in 30 years doesn't sound that oppressive to me.

Unless you're talking about the oppression of czarist terrorists, anarchist terrorists, opportunistic grain-hoarders, and fascist collaborators, in which case, yes, leninists absolutely oppressed those people and I see no problem with that.

Actually, one more group got oppressed, and that was other groups of Marxist-Leninists (but trust me, if you were trying to run a nation and you had some trot blabbering at you 24/7, you'd purge the party too )

Slavery isn't a problem anymore in the U.S. And the reasoning for that is because people like Jefferson and Washington wrote into the Constitution the ideas of equality and freedom.

Actually, slavery isn't a problem anymore due to the actions of brave liberators, black and white, giving up their lives in a war.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/03/mi ... ed-states/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 30266.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -migration

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -in-a-year

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ca/406177/

https://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn. ... toric-low/

hey do you have 90 so i can buy a slave

[An-Tanwir]

This. Thanks for the correction.



Idk, free healthcare, universal suffrage, and worker ownership of industry, and transformation from a feudal agrarian country to a nuclear superpower in 30 years doesn't sound that oppressive to me.

Unless you're talking about the oppression of czarist terrorists, anarchist terrorists, opportunistic grain-hoarders, and fascist collaborators, in which case, yes, leninists absolutely oppressed those people and I see no problem with that.

Actually, one more group got oppressed, and that was other groups of Marxist-Leninists (but trust me, if you were trying to run a nation and you had some trot blabbering at you 24/7, you'd purge the party too )



Actually, slavery isn't a problem anymore due to the actions of brave liberators, black and white, giving up their lives in a war.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/03/mi ... ed-states/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 30266.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -migration

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -in-a-year

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ca/406177/

https://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn. ... toric-low/

hey do you have 90 so i can buy a slave

This is an excellent point.

[Esotyrica]

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/03/mi ... ed-states/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 30266.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -migration

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -in-a-year

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ca/406177/

https://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn. ... toric-low/

hey do you have 90 so i can buy a slave

This is an excellent point.

is it okay if the slave is a trotskyist