Racism - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is Racism a mark for a lack of education or intelligence?

Lack of Education
1
3%
Lack of Intelligence
3
8%
Both
11
29%
Neither
13
34%
Other
10
26%
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15000997
Hindsite wrote:Perhaps, that is because more Black folks, at present, see training to run as a better way to gain success than studying science. However, there have been some famous Black scientist in the past and today, such as George Washington Carver and Neil deGrasse Tyson.


True! There have been some famous White runners such as Roger Bannister. :lol:
User avatar
By Verv
#15001002
Pants-of-dog wrote:But it is not our country.


But it is our country while not being your country.

Language is a social construct -- why would you be surprised that, even in language, people as different as us are using different constructions?

Why be so judgmental about that? Don't get hung up, bro.


No. Some parts are right and some parts are wrong.



No, this is not true.



No.

You do not get it.

You are claiming blacks are a race.

You are claiming Kenyans are a race.

You are claiming that the subtribe is a race.

They cannot all be races. If one is a race, the other two cannot be.


Please note that Pants of Dog absolutely refused to respond in detail at all. What we actually just have is him saying I am wrong and that only some of what is said is right in two iterations, and that makes it actually impossible to respond because he does not even bother telling me what I have said that is inaccurate or wrong until the very end here.

My opponent is refusing to argue and to engage. What can I do?

But onto the part where he puts up an argument -- we see that it is actually the same argument I have been trying to disentangle us from from the beginning so that we can actually have a conversation about biology, genetics, and humanity.

He is obsessed with getting us to talk about human categories, and when I try to appease the situation by saying that the categories are a social construct and that we need to play fast and loose with them to some degree, he insists I am doing something wrong.

It seems clear to me:

Pants of Dog has to recognize that, logically, the genetics of East Africans make them good marathon runners, but he absolutely does not want to say that significant ethnic or genetic categories exist.

He hopes to terminate the argument in utero by insisting that the argument can't happen because categoires can't be constructed.

Yet, East African is a valid category and we get valid results from it.

I'd liek to further point out that historically, there is a variety of ways to refer to these categories.


Since not all East Africans are good runners, this question is based on a wrong premise.


... Are we really back on this level?

East Africans resoundingly prove a massive trend in the running world, and show that their genetic sets overwhelmingly give the average person among them advantages in long distance running...

And you are suddenly going to say "Well, some of them aren't that good, so the rest of this is irrelevant..."

That is like saying that since some people who got graduate degrees from Harvard are not intelligent or not successful, it means nothing that people with graduate degrees from Harvard cannot be said to have any real advantage over people who only have their GEDs.

Bad, bad argument.

There are black Mexicans, and white ones, and Asian ones, and indigenous people living in Mexico. Mexico is not a genetic ethnogroup.


In the sense that there are citizens as such, right. There are perhaps even some Asians who are culturally Mexican, but this would perhaps be even more unique.

When we are saying Mexican, we are generally talking about the Mexican people as an ethnos, not the gringa who speaks bad Spanish, married in, and is now a citizen, right...?

And this has nothing to do with whether or not races are distinct, which is one of the central premises of the race IQ debate, and which you have not only failed to support, but which you have dismissed as unimportant despite claiming it.

The race IQ debate between us is over and you have failed to support it.


We haven't even begun to talk about that.

We are still on long distance runners and strugglign with groups.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

You have failed to support your claim that the races are genetically distinct.


Do West Africans have an advantage inherently, due to their genes, bone structure, and muscle, when it comes to sprinting?

Because the people of West African descent who dominate these sports grow up in very different societies in the Carribbean in the US.
By Hindsite
#15001005
Suntzu wrote:True! There have been some famous White runners such as Roger Bannister. :lol:

I still remember this White Olympic sprinter during the time I was running track in high school.

Armin Hary (born 22 March 1937) is a retired German sprinter who won the 1960 Olympic 100 meters dash. He was the first non-American to win the event since Percy Williams of Canada took the gold medal in 1928, the first man to run 100 meters in 10.0 seconds and the last white man to establish world record in 100 meters dash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Hary

Armin Hary - The World's Fastest 100m Starter - Rome 1960 Olympics


With all the complaints against him, Hary underwent testing, and was found to have a reaction time 3 times faster than normal, probably around 40-50ms (0.04 sec), compared to the average person of 132ms (0.132 sec)

http://speedendurance.com/2010/03/01/ar ... le-part-1/

Last edited by Hindsite on 25 Apr 2019 03:37, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By MistyTiger
#15001006
It is both.

I was raised in a diverse state until I was 8. I am still very accepting of all types of people from all walks of life. The cultures fascinate me.

I am educated enough to realize I dislike aspects of other cultures, but that does not mean that I hate any certain race. I can like candy but not the fake dyes in some candies.
By Pants-of-dog
#15001076
Verv wrote:But it is our country while not being your country.


You are neither plural nor royal, so this is grammatically incorrect.

Please note that Pants of Dog absolutely refused to respond in detail at all.


Actually, I went through most of this more than once in this thread.

What we actually just have is him saying I am wrong and that only some of what is said is right in two iterations, and that makes it actually impossible to respond because he does not even bother telling me what I have said that is inaccurate or wrong until the very end here.

My opponent is refusing to argue and to engage. What can I do?

But onto the part where he puts up an argument -- we see that it is actually the same argument I have been trying to disentangle us from from the beginning so that we can actually have a conversation about biology, genetics, and humanity.

He is obsessed with getting us to talk about human categories, and when I try to appease the situation by saying that the categories are a social construct and that we need to play fast and loose with them to some degree, he insists I am doing something wrong.


You still have not even defined race.

Start with that.

It seems clear to me:

Pants of Dog has to recognize that, logically, the genetics of East Africans make them good marathon runners, but he absolutely does not want to say that significant ethnic or genetic categories exist.

He hopes to terminate the argument in utero by insisting that the argument can't happen because categoires can't be constructed.

Yet, East African is a valid category and we get valid results from it.

I'd liek to further point out that historically, there is a variety of ways to refer to these categories.


Is East African a race? Yes or no?

... Are we really back on this level?

East Africans resoundingly prove a massive trend in the running world, and show that their genetic sets overwhelmingly give the average person among them advantages in long distance running...

And you are suddenly going to say "Well, some of them aren't that good, so the rest of this is irrelevant..."


No, you have shown that East Africans are not good at racing. Instead some people from one subtribe of one nation in East Africa excels at it.

If you are claiming that East Africans are a race, then blacks are not a race, and this contradicts your previous claim that the Kenyan nation is composed of more than one race.

Your ideas about race are internally inconsistent.

In the sense that there are citizens as such, right. There are perhaps even some Asians who are culturally Mexican, but this would perhaps be even more unique.

When we are saying Mexican, we are generally talking about the Mexican people as an ethnos, not the gringa who speaks bad Spanish, married in, and is now a citizen, right...?


I have no idea what you mean by Mexican. I am certain that your defintion of what a Mexican is will exclude people whose families have been living in Mexico for centuries.

We haven't even begun to talk about that.

We are still on long distance runners and strugglign with groups.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.


You have failed to show that the races are genetically distinct. This is necessary if you want to prove that IQ is determined by race.

You have not provided any evidence for this, and you have even dismissed this as unimportant.

You have failed.

Do West Africans have an advantage inherently, due to their genes, bone structure, and muscle, when it comes to sprinting?

Because the people of West African descent who dominate these sports grow up in very different societies in the Carribbean in the US.


Is this now a whole new argument?
User avatar
By MistyTiger
#15001117
Suntzu wrote:I always wondered why folks aren't screaming about Yellow supremacy since Orientals beat Whites. :eh:


I doubt people want to admit that any race let alone Asians reign supreme. It must be a sore subject for many folks.

Also, the term "oriental" to refer to Asian people is outdated and no longer used. ;)
User avatar
By Verv
#15001135
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are neither plural nor royal, so this is grammatically incorrect.


Other readers here are Americans, and other Americans exist, so it is appropriate for me to refer to our country as our country.

Besides... isn't language a social construct?

You still have not even defined race.

Start with that.


Sure:

"A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution."

Is East African a race? Yes or no?


Yes.

Race can be defined in many ways.

No, you have shown that East Africans are not good at racing. Instead some people from one subtribe of one nation in East Africa excels at it.

If you are claiming that East Africans are a race, then blacks are not a race, and this contradicts your previous claim that the Kenyan nation is composed of more than one race.

Your ideas about race are internally inconsistent.


I. Actually, the two tribes that were said to be the most outstanding among Ethiopians and Kenyans are one tribe numbering a million people and another tribe numbering five million people, as was put on the previous page. They are a tribe in the same sense that "Amhara" are a tribe in Ethiopia today -- we are not literally talking about like 300 people on the Kenyan plains. Yet, they are still conceptualized as tribes because of some of the hierarchical structures that remain.

II. Yes, there would be such a thing as an east African race, and a black race, and an Ethiopian race, etc.

You are clinging to the most popular definition of race used by Americans currently which is something just like the major, major racial groups in Western nations identified by sight and referred to by color.

III. I said that Kenya was multicultural.

But yes, if you wanted to talk about Kenya as multiracial and differneces among specific racial groups within Kenya, that could be entertained.

But generally speaking, on terms of scale, it isn't super relevant.

You have failed to show that the races are genetically distinct. This is necessary if you want to prove that IQ is determined by race.

You have not provided any evidence for this, and you have even dismissed this as unimportant.

You have failed.


I am white because both my parents are white, and all their grandparents are white, right?

This is a genetic trait that was given to me, correct?

It was not something that was given to me by culture, correct?

Or am I not white... because race does not exist... or?


Is this now a whole new argument?


LOL, how would it be? It's simply talking about a new aspect of genes contributing to physical prowess in a sport. This one is more spicy because there is not really anything that we would say represnets a cultural link between people who otherwise have a racial link in this case, right.
By Pants-of-dog
#15001139
Verv wrote:Other readers here are Americans, and other Americans exist, so it is appropriate for me to refer to our country as our country.


Are you speaking for them? That seems odd.

Besides... isn't language a social construct?


Yes, and?

Sure:

"A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution."


So, these two people are from the same race since they have a common history, nationality, and come from the same geographic area:

This man:

Image

And these women:

Image

Yes.

Race can be defined in many ways.


If you are claiming that East Africans are a race, then blacks are not a race, and this contradicts your previous claim that the Kenyan nation is composed of more than one race.

If you are claiming that East Africans are a race, then blacks are not a race, and this contradicts your previous claim that the Kenyan nation is composed of more than one race.

If you are claiming that East Africans are a race, then blacks are not a race, and this contradicts your previous claim that the Kenyan nation is composed of more than one race.

I apologize for repeating myself, but I find that sometimes this is the only way to get someone to address a point they have ignored over and over again.

I. Actually, the two tribes that were said to be the most outstanding among Ethiopians and Kenyans are one tribe numbering a million people and another tribe numbering five million people, as was put on the previous page. They are a tribe in the same sense that "Amhara" are a tribe in Ethiopia today -- we are not literally talking about like 300 people on the Kenyan plains. Yet, they are still conceptualized as tribes because of some of the hierarchical structures that remain.


If you are claiming that East Africans are a race, then blacks are not a race, and this contradicts your previous claim that the Kenyan nation is composed of more than one race.

If you are claiming that this one subtribe is a race, then blacks are not a race, and this contradicts your previous claim that the Kenyan nation is a race.

Finally, you need to read your article better. It does not discuss the Kenyan tribe, it talks about the Kalenjin tribe.

II. Yes, there would be such a thing as an east African race, and a black race, and an Ethiopian race, etc.

You are clinging to the most popular definition of race used by Americans currently which is something just like the major, major racial groups in Western nations identified by sight and referred to by color.


No, that is not how taxonomy works.

III. I said that Kenya was multicultural.

But yes, if you wanted to talk about Kenya as multiracial and differneces among specific racial groups within Kenya, that could be entertained.

But generally speaking, on terms of scale, it isn't super relevant.


If you are arguing that the Nandi are a race, and the Kalenjin are a race, and Kenyans are a race, and East Africans are a race, and blacks are a race, you necessarily are arguing that Kenya is multiracial, and also destroying any hope of logical consistency your argument ever had.

I am white because both my parents are white, and all their grandparents are white, right?

This is a genetic trait that was given to me, correct?

It was not something that was given to me by culture, correct?

Or am I not white... because race does not exist... or?


No, you can enjoy the privilege of whiteness without having white grandparents.

My children enjoy all sorts of white privilege while having Latino and indigenous grandparents.

LOL, how would it be? It's simply talking about a new aspect of genes contributing to physical prowess in a sport. This one is more spicy because there is not really anything that we would say represnets a cultural link between people who otherwise have a racial link in this case, right.


If you want to present evidence go for it, but since you cannot even provide a coherent definition of race, this will probably be as fruitless as your other arguments.
User avatar
By Verv
#15001140
We all know what you are doing here: you are pretending that race can't exist because heritage groups can be defined in many ways. You are then smashing together ideas you claim are conflicting, but aren't.

East Africans can be conceptualized as a sub-race of the black race; the black race, of course, is a sub-race of the human race.

Do you have a problem with someone saying something like that?

If you still have a problem with it... Then, can we discuss this in terms of heritage trends without discussing race?

For instance, who cares if the "East Africans" are a race... What we just know is that East African descent people are the best long distance runners.

Are they a race? What "larger race" are they part of? Does race exist?

Those are all separate questions.

We just recognize them as East Africans who do have this advantage.

Would you like to talk about it in this way?
By Pants-of-dog
#15001173
Verv wrote:We all know what you are doing here: you are pretending that race can't exist because heritage groups can be defined in many ways.


No.

I am saying race does exist, and that race can be defined many ways.

I am also saying that race cannot be defined as distinct biological groups of humans, since the biological evidence refutes that.

And I am also saying that the definition you gave is inconsistent.

You are then smashing together ideas you claim are conflicting, but aren't.

East Africans can be conceptualized as a sub-race of the black race; the black race, of course, is a sub-race of the human race.

Do you have a problem with someone saying something like that?

If you still have a problem with it... Then, can we discuss this in terms of heritage trends without discussing race?

For instance, who cares if the "East Africans" are a race... What we just know is that East African descent people are the best long distance runners.

Are they a race? What "larger race" are they part of? Does race exist?

Those are all separate questions.

We just recognize them as East Africans who do have this advantage.

Would you like to talk about it in this way?


No.

I would prefer you to use race to mean only one thing.

Now, let us do things one step at a time.

Are races distinct from one another? Yes or no? By that, I mean there are clear separations between one group and another.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15001243
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

I am saying race does exist, and that race can be defined many ways.

I am also saying that race cannot be defined as distinct biological groups of humans, since the biological evidence refutes that.

And I am also saying that the definition you gave is inconsistent.




No.

I would prefer you to use race to mean only one thing.

Now, let us do things one step at a time.

Are races distinct from one another? Yes or no? By that, I mean there are clear separations between one group and another.


Are red and yellow distinct colors? What happens when you mix them? Is orange proof that red and yellow don't exist. Whether we divide folks up into 3 or 4 or 15 or 20 groups, fact is, there are distinct groups. It doesn't take a brains surgeon to separate out East Africans from Germans. :lol:
User avatar
By Verv
#15001261
Of course, Suntzu is right: Red & yellow are distinct colors.

Of course, there are admixtures that have elements of both red and yellow, and we can even probably create a mix where somoene is even disinclined to say that it is red or yellow, but it is both, but generally speaking, red and yellow totally do exist.

... But...

Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

I am saying race does exist, and that race can be defined many ways.

I am also saying that race cannot be defined as distinct biological groups of humans, since the biological evidence refutes that.

And I am also saying that the definition you gave is inconsistent.



No.

I would prefer you to use race to mean only one thing.

Now, let us do things one step at a time.

Are races distinct from one another? Yes or no? By that, I mean there are clear separations between one group and another.


OK, sure, race doesn't exist at all.

However, genetics exist, and DNA exists, and we know that being descended from a certain group of people can make one an exponentially better long distance runner. These communities produce genetic sets that are highly advantageous to those endeavors, right.

But we do not have to call that race.

You would agree, though, that we can make generalizations that people descended from a certain ethnic group will be superior long distance runners, right?

We do not have to talk about this in terms of race at all...

We can simply all agree that certain groups of people have higher athletic aptitudes in certain categories than other groups of people, right? And so if two typical Kenyans from among the tribal groups that excel at long distance running have 10 children, the bulk (if not all) of those children will have the natural aptitude towards long distance running, right?

If you can agree to that then we can proceed. I think you know what comes next, and we can skip ahead and have an honest discussion if you want, or we can do this slowly, like pulling teeth. It makes no difference to me.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15001339
Verv wrote:Of course, Suntzu is right: Red & yellow are distinct colors.

Of course, there are admixtures that have elements of both red and yellow, and we can even probably create a mix where somoene is even disinclined to say that it is red or yellow, but it is both, but generally speaking, red and yellow totally do exist.

... But...



OK, sure, race doesn't exist at all.

However, genetics exist, and DNA exists, and we know that being descended from a certain group of people can make one an exponentially better long distance runner. These communities produce genetic sets that are highly advantageous to those endeavors, right.

But we do not have to call that race.

You would agree, though, that we can make generalizations that people descended from a certain ethnic group will be superior long distance runners, right?

We do not have to talk about this in terms of race at all...

We can simply all agree that certain groups of people have higher athletic aptitudes in certain categories than other groups of people, right? And so if two typical Kenyans from among the tribal groups that excel at long distance running have 10 children, the bulk (if not all) of those children will have the natural aptitude towards long distance running, right?

If you can agree to that then we can proceed. I think you know what comes next, and we can skip ahead and have an honest discussion if you want, or we can do this slowly, like pulling teeth. It makes no difference to me.


Nope, nope, nope! Can't talk about genetics and intelligence. :roll:
By Rich
#15001356
Some terms I use in a very strict way. So for example I only use anti-Semtism in its original meaning to mean prejudice against Semites and not the way Jewish Supremaicst bigots use it to imply that the only Semites whose lives have any value are Jews. Jews who might not even be Semites. However with some terms, I'm happy to run with their contradictory and ambiguous meanings.

So racist can have a whole range of meanings from genocidal hatred of a group all the way down to the belief that Pygmies are genetically inferior at basketball. As to the latter believe I'm a proud and unapologetic racist. This also means that anti-racism is also a thoroughly ambiguous and contradictory term.

Given the overwhelming victory of Cultural Marxism in the West, the ruling ideology in our society is founded on pervasive bigotry and prejudice against Gentiles, Infidels and Whites. The essential rule is whatever hurts, damages, disadvantages, degrades or humiliates, Gentiles, Infidels and Whites. We must blindly accept Jews, Muslims and non Whites as no different when it is to their advantage, but we must consider them as special groups deserving special privileges when that is to their advantage. We must be completely colour blind when its to their advantage and we must be hyper sensitive to their difference when its to their advantage. We must feel shame and guilty for noticing they are different, and we must feel shame and guilt for not noticing they're different.

Obviously challenges occur when you get conflicts between these privileged groups. The 2005 Election for Bethnal Green and Bow was an absolute joy. The Labour Party candidate was half Black-African, half Jewish. The constituency had a lot of ethnic Pakistanis. Anyone who knows anything about British Pakistanis knows that they're horrendously racist towards both Jews and Black Africans. This racism greatly aided Galloway's victory. Jeremy Paxman was incensed. Not with the racist British Pakistanis, but with the white guy George Galloway for giving the "innocent" ethinc-Pakistani Muslims the opportunity to display their racism. :lol:
By Pants-of-dog
#15001372
Verv wrote:Of course, Suntzu is right: Red & yellow are distinct colors.

Of course, there are admixtures that have elements of both red and yellow, and we can even probably create a mix where somoene is even disinclined to say that it is red or yellow, but it is both, but generally speaking, red and yellow totally do exist.

... But...


I can explain the science behind how the different colours are distinct.

You are unable to explain the science behind the idea that the races are distinct.

OK, sure, race doesn't exist at all.


For the third time, race does exist.

However, genetics exist, and DNA exists, and we know that being descended from a certain group of people can make one an exponentially better long distance runner. These communities produce genetic sets that are highly advantageous to those endeavors, right.


No, we do not know that.

But we do not have to call that race.


You still have not provided a scientific definition of race.

You would agree, though, that we can make generalizations that people descended from a certain ethnic group will be superior long distance runners, right?


You can make generalizations. They might not be right, though.

We do not have to talk about this in terms of race at all...

We can simply all agree that certain groups of people have higher athletic aptitudes in certain categories than other groups of people, right? And so if two typical Kenyans from among the tribal groups that excel at long distance running have 10 children, the bulk (if not all) of those children will have the natural aptitude towards long distance running, right?


No, I do not agree.

You do this thing where you do bot provide support for your arguments, and then simply rephrase them and ask them in form of a question.

If you can agree to that then we can proceed. I think you know what comes next, and we can skip ahead and have an honest discussion if you want, or we can do this slowly, like pulling teeth. It makes no difference to me.


As far as I can tell, you have already decided to make this slow and painful like pulling teeth.

For example, you still have not provided a verifiable definition of race.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15001376
Stupid scientists! They think that they can trace when the Caucasians split off for the Negroes and the Oriental split off from the Caucasians. Some think they can take a single cell and tell which of the three groups it belongs in or if it is a mixture. :lol:
User avatar
By Godstud
#15001418
There is no scientific definition of race, so they aren't going to be able to give you one, @Pants-of-dog.

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label
It's been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics.

Over the past few decades, genetic research has revealed two deep truths about people. The first is that all humans are closely related—more closely related than all chimps, even though there are many more humans around today. Everyone has the same collection of genes, but with the exception of identical twins, everyone has slightly different versions of some of them. Studies of this genetic diversity have allowed scientists to reconstruct a kind of family tree of human populations. That has revealed the second deep truth: In a very real sense, all people alive today are Africans.

In humans, as in all species, genetic changes are the result of random mutations—tiny tweaks to DNA, the code of life. Mutations occur at a more or less constant rate, so the longer a group persists, handing down its genes generation after generation, the more tweaks these genes will accumulate. Meanwhile, the longer two groups are separated, the more distinctive tweaks they will acquire.

“What the genetics shows is that mixture and displacement have happened again and again and that our pictures of past ‘racial structures’ are almost always wrong,” says David Reich, a Harvard University paleogeneticist whose new book on the subject is called Who We Are and How We Got Here. There are no fixed traits associated with specific geographic locations, Reich says, because as often as isolation has created differences among populations, migration and mixing have blurred or erased them.

Across the world today, skin color is highly variable. Much of the difference correlates with latitude. Near the Equator lots of sunlight makes dark skin a useful shield against ultraviolet radiation; toward the poles, where the problem is too little sun, paler skin promotes the production of vitamin D. Several genes work together to determine skin tone, and different groups may possess any number of combinations of different tweaks. Among Africans, some people, such as the Mursi of Ethiopia, have skin that’s almost ebony, while others, such as the Khoe-San, have skin the color of copper. Many dark-skinned East Africans, researchers were surprised to learn, possess the light-skinned variant of SLC24A5. (It seems to have been introduced to Africa, just as it was to Europe, from the Middle East.) East Asians, for their part, generally have light skin but possess the dark-skinned version of the gene. Cheng has been using zebrafish to try to figure out why. “It’s not simple,” he says.

When people speak about race, usually they seem to be referring to skin color and, at the same time, to something more than skin color. This is the legacy of people such as Morton, who developed the “science” of race to suit his own prejudices and got the actual science totally wrong. Science today tells us that the visible differences between peoples are accidents of history. They reflect how our ancestors dealt with sun exposure, and not much else.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... ce-africa/
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15001422
Only about half the scientist believe there is such a thing as race. These are mostly from the hard sciences such as biology, genetics, etc., folks like Shockley, Watson. Some social scientist embrace the concept of race such a Rushton. :p
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 13

And since there is no profit, capitalism has no s[…]

The US military leadership says that to protect th[…]

Apparently Hindsite is a true American, and defin[…]

EU-BREXIT

Three Years On: Still Divided Today marks […]