Skip

United States of America
September 29, 2013 12:30 PM   Subscribe

Warning! The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased, entry for the United States of America
posted by Blasdelb (49 comments total) 48 users marked this as a favorite

 
Holy cats this is interesting reading:

The abrupt sharpening of the contradictions between “two social systems—the system of slavery and the system of free labor” (K. Marx, in K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 15, p. 355) led to the bourgeois revolution of 1861–77. The revolution consisted of two stages: the Civil War (1861–65), during which slavery was abolished and a military defeat was inflicted on the counterrevolutionaries, and Reconstruction (1865–77), during which the struggle to complete the bourgeois-democratic changes in the South continued.

As a side note - I got an inexpensive SW radio for Christmas one year when I was a kid and was endless fascinated by the English-language broadcasts from Radio Moscow. Radio dramas, news, and whatnot chock full of propaganda (as I'm sure ours were as well). In perfect English, but they seemed to be coming from a whole other universe.
posted by jquinby at 12:44 PM on September 29, 2013 [5 favorites]


As a side note - I got an inexpensive SW radio for Christmas one year when I was a kid and was endless fascinated by the English-language broadcasts from Radio Moscow.

Folkways subsidiary Cook Records put out a full-length LP of Radio Moscow broadcasts ("a digest [PDF] of current Russian comment") in 1961. You can listen to the whole thing on YouTube [1 | 2 | 3 | 4].
posted by mykescipark at 12:54 PM on September 29, 2013 [16 favorites]


Also interesting,
"An important, extremely contradictory phenomenon of the first half of the 1960’s and the 1970’s is pop music, which reflects many negative aspects of American culture—pluralism, instability, and commercialism. Pop music is closely linked to the youth movement in the USA, for which it has become the principal means of artistic expression, having replaced the entire multiplicity of types of musical art. It clothes serious feelings and ideas in the easily accessible forms of the subculture of the masses. Pop music evolved from the successive movements of rhythm and blues (a type of Negro urban music of the 1940’s, as represented by M. Waters, T-bone Walker, and R. Charles), rock ’n’ roll (dating from the second half of the 1950’s, as represented by E. Presley, B. Haley, and others), and soul (a combination of rhythm and blues and gospel, dating from the late 1950’s and represented by A. Franklin, J. Brown, and others). Later, pop music interacted with serious music (as in L. Bernstein’s Mass, 1971), with avant-garde trends (as with F. Zappa and his group, The Mothers of Invention) and with jazz (thus forming the avant-garde jazz of C. Taylor, H. Hancock, and J. Zawinul). Under the influence of the British vocal-instrumental group The Beatles, several thousand similar groups appeared in the USA—America, Jefferson Airplane, Chicago, and Blood, Sweat, and Tears. On the whole, these groups express a “philosophy of drugs,” an interest in oriental mysticism, and a preaching of sexual freedom, all of which were evoked by the hippie movement. Since 1969, festivals, such as those at Woodstock, near Bethel, N.Y., where attendances have run as high as 500,000, have become centers of pop music.

During the 1970’s, pop music essentially became a commercial art; millions of copies of records were sold, and propaganda was conducted by means of various types of mass communication. Many pop music performers have exhibited a high degree of artistry, for example, the female vocalists C. King, J. Joplin, and A. Franklin, the male vocalists J. Webb and M. Gaye, and such groups as Simon and Garfunkel (who perform their own songs) and Peter, Paul, and Mary. One of the types of pop music that attained particular fame and which in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s pushed the musical into the background was a new form for the musical stage known as the rock opera; examples are Hair (G. MacDermot and others, 1967), Jesus Christ Superstar (the Englishman A. L. Webber, 1971), and Godspell (S. Schwartz, 1971)."
posted by Blasdelb at 12:56 PM on September 29, 2013 [2 favorites]


Also,
"During World War II (1939–15), progressive American filmmakers made a significant contribution to the anti-Hitlerite coalition by producing documentary motion pictures, for example, Capra’s series Why We Fight, J. Huston’s Report From the Aleutians (1943), Ford’s The Battle of Midway (1942), and Wyler’s Memphis Belle (1944).

As a result of the postwar persecution of progressive workers in the motion-picture industry, studios released films of inferior artistic quality. In addition, television became popular in the early 1950’s, causing a sharp decline in motion-picture attendance and an economic crisis in the film industry. Several attempts were made to revive interest in motion pictures, including the introduction of such technical improvements as new visual effects. These attempts did not prove successful, since they did not improve the ideological content or artistic level of the films."
posted by Blasdelb at 12:58 PM on September 29, 2013 [5 favorites]


I've only read the section on government, but a few things struck me:

The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were adopted in 1789

Never explained in detail or mentioned again, although the remaining (more boring) amendments are all listed.

The president, the head of state and government, is elected by the population for a four-year term by means of indirect election (by way of the Electoral College).

While this is technically true, it sort of willfully misunderstands the way elections actually work in the USA-- it's been effectively direct election for a long time now. I wonder if this was an attempt to make American elections seem more like the Soviet system?

Elections are characterized by absenteeism—the conscious nonparticipation of eligible voters. ... There are laws limiting campaign spending, but they are systematically circumvented.

Here they seem to have a firm grasp of how the electoral system works, which makes me think that any inaccuracies or omissions are definitely intentional. I can't help but read anything published by Communists as propaganda; I think this probably is, but I hope someone who understands the USSR will come along and pick it apart.
posted by vogon_poet at 12:59 PM on September 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Pluralism" as a negative aspect of American culture ...?
posted by kiltedtaco at 1:02 PM on September 29, 2013



While this is technically true, it sort of willfully misunderstands the way elections actually work in the USA-- it's been effectively direct election for a long time now.
Has not. Still isn't.

(I see this as a feature, not a bug, but them's the facts.)
posted by Shmuel510 at 1:04 PM on September 29, 2013 [11 favorites]


Never explained in detail or mentioned again, although the remaining (more boring) amendments are all listed.

There are a couple among the first ten that would probably give people ideas unbecoming of a true socialist worker... in fact all of them I suspect. 3rd one could probably be printed.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 1:05 PM on September 29, 2013


In 1949 the USA initiated the establishment of the aggressive NATO military bloc, which gave new impetus to the arms race and increased the danger of a world war. The USA increasingly backed away from the four-power resolutions on Germany, inclining instead toward an alliance with a remilitarized West Germany.
...
In 1950 the US ruling circles interfered in the internal affairs of the Korean people, having initiated an intervention in which several other countries (under the guise of “UN troops”) also took part.
Entire discussion of the Cuban missile crisis:
US policy toward Cuba led to the Caribbean Crisis of 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis), which brought about a threat of armed conflict between the USA and the USSR. The crisis, resolved as a result of the energetic actions of the Soviet government and the steadfastness of the Cuban people, had a sobering effect on US ruling circles.
posted by kiltedtaco at 1:15 PM on September 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Pluralism" as a negative aspect of American culture ...?

It's meant as an allusion to democratic centralism, as opposed to political pluralism.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 1:15 PM on September 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


There are a couple among the first ten that would probably give people ideas unbecoming of a true socialist worker... in fact all of them I suspect. 3rd one could probably be printed.

Soviet Constitution 1936, Articles 50 - 57:
Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.
Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

Article 51. In accordance with the aims of building communism, citizens of the USSR have the right to associate in public organisations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests.
Public organisations are guaranteed conditions for successfully performing the functions defined in their rules.

Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

Article 53. The family enjoys the protection of the state.
Marriage is based on the free consent of the woman and the man; the spouses are completely equal in their family relations.
The state helps the family by providing and developing a broad system of childcare institutions, by organising and improving communal services and public catering, by paying grants on the birth of a child, by providing children's allowances and benefits for large families, and other forms of family allowances and assistance.

Article 54. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator.

Article 55. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the home. No one may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it.

Article 56. The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.

Article 57. Respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the duty of all state bodies, public organisations, and officials.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:17 PM on September 29, 2013 [25 favorites]


While this is technically true, it sort of willfully misunderstands the way elections actually work in the USA-- it's been effectively direct election for a long time now.

Why Do Nebraska and Maine Split Electoral Votes?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:17 PM on September 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


(I see this as a feature, not a bug, but them's the facts.)

In practice it is though. Electors never choose their own votes. The ballot lists presidential candidates, not electors. The popular and electoral votes have disagreed four times in history. The system obviously isn't a true popular vote direct election, but I think it's disingenuous to call it "indirect", as if the electors are exercising their own judgment.
posted by vogon_poet at 1:19 PM on September 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Soviet Constitution 1936, Articles 50 - 57:

I get your point, but what would be the ideological consequences of the realization that the basic values of Imperialist USA and USSR are basically the same?
posted by Pyrogenesis at 1:19 PM on September 29, 2013


Fascinating to see our history and culture through the Soviet lens. Some of this is propaganda, and some of it is accurate. I'm sure our encyclopaedic references to the Soviet Union are similar, with the same result.

What surprises is the rationality of approach in these pieces, and the intelligence behind it. It's far less "propogandish" than I thought it would be.
posted by Vibrissae at 1:24 PM on September 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


The long section on the overall slope of American history is roughly 900x more clearheaded, more interesting and easier to grasp than anything the California public school system ever offered me. This is not exactly news, I guess. But it's striking looking back to realize just how studiously everyone avoided talking about power and who held it, or ever acknowledging that the American ruling class ever acted in its own self-interest, even though without talking about power nothing makes any goddam sense.
posted by a birds at 1:26 PM on September 29, 2013 [16 favorites]


I get your point, but what would be the ideological consequences of the realization that the basic values of Imperialist USA and USSR are basically the same?

I don't think Americans have the slightest clue how the Soviet Union actually functioned beyond the crudest sorts of propaganda. And I'm not apologizing at all for the crimes of the Soviets: genocide, wars of aggression, brutal repression of democratic politics, etc.

The idea that our basic social values would be seen as being derived from the constitution rather than the other way around was one of the prime arguments against the amending of the U.S. constitution to include a 'Bill of Rights.' My point was that you can't read basic values from either the US or Soviet constitutions... and I imagine the average Soviet might have known far more about US society and government than we knew of theirs: you have an idea of the "soviet worker" which is almost entirely formed by US state propaganda.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:28 PM on September 29, 2013 [18 favorites]


The system obviously isn't a true popular vote direct election, but I think it's disingenuous to call it "indirect", as if the electors are exercising their own judgment.

Ah, we're parsing the key terms differently. You're taking "indirect" as "the electors have free will." That's not the way I'd read it, and I doubt it was meant that way. In my mind, "the people vote for electors, who then vote for the president" can never really be termed a "direct election," no matter how certain the electors are to do what they're told.

(For that matter, calling it a "direct election" would elide the essential feature wherein the system gives the less populous states a larger share of the electoral pie.)
posted by Shmuel510 at 1:31 PM on September 29, 2013 [7 favorites]


I only read the government entry as well. It is interesting how you nod your head mostly in agreement until you come across the subtle inaccuracies or start thinking about what is left out of the description. I normally think of propaganda as more blatant, but I'm sure that this article is the rule rather than the exception.
posted by montag2k at 1:49 PM on September 29, 2013


In a real sense, though, the people don't vote for electors, they vote for candidates. I guess if I were feeling fancy, I would call it a de jure indirect election? But I have to wonder how USSR citizens would have read it, whether they would have assumed that the actual selection of the president is far removed from the popular vote (as in the soviet system).

On preview: A lot of Chinese Communist propaganda, even today, is pretty heavy-handed. And the Russians are still very good at this -- see Russia Today, which they sometimes pay to have included with the New York Times.
posted by vogon_poet at 1:53 PM on September 29, 2013


I only read the government entry as well.

I found that doing a search for "Hoover" and reading on from there lays bare the different trajectories in the US and USSR views of American history.
posted by psoas at 2:02 PM on September 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


You could actually get a pretty decent grounding in 19th-century US history from this article, along with extra bits like this:

After the defeat of the Revolution of 1848–49 in Germany, thousands of German immigrants came to the USA. Among the immigrants were leaders of the Communist League, including J. Weydemeyer, F. Sorge, and F. Jacobi, on whose initiative the first Marxist organizations in the USA were founded in 1852. The Communist Club was organized in New York in 1857.

Once the Great October Socialist Revolution happens in Russia, of course, everything is measured against that. I found this grimly amusing:

In a speech of Oct. 5,1937, Roosevelt called for a “quarantine” against aggressors. However, in 1938 the USA gave de facto recognition to Hitler’s Anschluss of Austria and facilitated the conclusion of the Munich Pact of 1938. This policy of “going along” with fascist aggression encouraged the outbreak of World War II (1939–45).

Gee, who else's policy of “going along” with fascist aggression encouraged the outbreak of World War II?
posted by languagehat at 2:15 PM on September 29, 2013 [11 favorites]


That is a really cool find. Everything in it is filtered through the lens of the peoples' struggle against the bourgeoisie, the pro-monopoly government, fascism, racism, socialism, and communism. Here's one of my favorite bits:

A modernist school of literature eventually was formed. The poets E. Pound (1885–1972) and T. S. Eliot (1888–1965) and the prose writer G. Stein (1874–1946) cut their ties with America, considering that the triumph of bourgeois utilitarianism in the country precluded any genuine culture.
posted by bfootdav at 2:31 PM on September 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


Harmless.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 2:48 PM on September 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


Mostly
posted by bfootdav at 2:52 PM on September 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


I normally think of propaganda as more blatant, but I'm sure that this article is the rule rather than the exception.

This sort of thing works much, much better in the presence of the "THEY ARE COMING TO EAT YOUR BABIES" kind of propaganda: it looks perfectly reasonable, compared to that laughable nonsense. There's nothing untrue in it, but it carefully selects what's important enough to include (I once saw it compared to walking along a brown sand beach and picking up the white grains of sand until you have a handful of them, then showing them to someone and saying "I got this from that beach -- it must be a white sand beach, right?").
posted by Etrigan at 2:56 PM on September 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


But the thing is, it's essentially impossible to draw a clear line between propaganda and the combined effects of outsider bias and cultural blinders. If you look at American encyclopedia articles on the USSR from the same (late-Brezhnev) period, sure, there won't be blatant propaganda of the EVIL COMMIES variety, but you'll still get a skewed view of Soviet life and culture. It wasn't until I started reading Russian well enough to immerse myself in local sources that I felt I was getting any sort of realistic idea of what the Soviet Union was like.
posted by languagehat at 3:10 PM on September 29, 2013 [13 favorites]


His successor, W. H. Taft (president, 1909–13), conducted an openly conservative policy, which provoked opposition within the Republican Party.

I love how this article buys into TR's Trustbuster mythos, when Taft broke up more trusts than he did.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:39 PM on September 29, 2013


> In a real sense, though, the people don't vote for electors, they vote for candidates.

They vote for electors. The fact that the ballots themselves may present a simplified version of the process doesn't change things. In 21 states, the electors are not bound by law to vote for the pledged candidate.
posted by savetheclocktower at 3:56 PM on September 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Some of this is propaganda, and some of it is accurate.

I'd stop short of calling it "propaganda." It's not propaganda when it's an earnest appraisal. Every author has a bias, in this case it's Marxism. It's flawed by nature of not being objective, but "propaganda" carries of connotation of intentional disinformation. So it might be propaganda, but we don't know. It might have been written and published striving for accuracy but seeing through a lens that was in some degree warped.

US authors published lots of biased analysis of the Soviet system as well. Some of it was bad intentioned or motivated by capitalist political pressure, some of it was written in good faith despite it being (sometimes deeply) flawed. The former would be considered propaganda in the colloquial sense, the latter would not.

I guess the importance of the distinction is debatable, anyway. Just a thought I had.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:21 PM on September 29, 2013 [6 favorites]


This is how 'anti-American propaganda' is all over the world. There is generally, in countries where the government opposes american foreign policy, the idea that an elite controls America that acts against the will of the American people, who are generally considered to be decent but naive people.
posted by empath at 4:21 PM on September 29, 2013 [2 favorites]


I stumbled across a shelf of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia in college and mined it for papers and essays for my entire undergraduate career. I think I was the only one on campus using them. A lot of people didn't seem to know they existed. I once did a research project comparing the slant in the Great Soviet encyclopedias with contemporaneous American and British encyclopedias (I spent months of saturdays photocopying the Great Soviet) and was sort of blown away at the similar number of unspoken assumptions in both. It was a formative experience in my academic development I guess.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:51 PM on September 29, 2013 [8 favorites]


A modernist school of literature eventually was formed. The poets E. Pound (1885–1972) and T. S. Eliot (1888–1965) and the prose writer G. Stein (1874–1946) cut their ties with America, considering that the triumph of bourgeois utilitarianism in the country precluded any genuine culture.

See, this is where it shows the blatant propaganda aspect. It somehow makes Pound's reasoning behind leaving the US as supporting the proletariat totally neglecting that he went Axis on them. If that isn't selective, I don't know what is.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:53 PM on September 29, 2013 [2 favorites]


This explains how Eliot decided to further his struggle against the capitalist octopus by joining the Anglican Church
posted by thelonius at 5:15 PM on September 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


There is generally, in countries where the government opposes american foreign policy, the idea that an elite controls America that acts against the will of the American people, who are generally considered to be decent but naive people.

Wait, so you're suggesting that an elite doesn't control the US against the will of the American people?
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:45 PM on September 29, 2013 [5 favorites]


> Some of this is propaganda, and some of it is accurate.

These are not antonyms, though.

A pool of information always has to be edited down for considerations of time, space or manageability; the reasons why some information is selected for inclusion can be because it is fairly representative or because it abstracts the (best|worst) of the information to support prior conclusions. The former is good (journalism|science|literature|law), the latter is (marketing|propaganda).
posted by ardgedee at 5:51 PM on September 29, 2013


An interesting way to approach this is that none of it is propaganda, it's just the Russian intellectual class writing down what they know of American History for other members of the Russian intellectual class to read.

And I say "writing down what they know" because they had very limited access to source materials. It's easy enough to find examples of creative fill-in-the-gaps scholarship about Russia in the west at the time and I suspect a lot of the same thing was happening there.

One leftover of the of the Cold War is this sense of the hyper-competence of the Soviet Totalitarian State. In reality it appears that as absolutely brutal as it could be to individuals who came into its sights, it was largely a bumbling bureaucracy that would have put Brazil to shame. Assuming that every document has been vigorously massaged by propaganda experts is probably a mistake.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:19 PM on September 29, 2013 [4 favorites]


Fascinating post!
Odd factoid - the word "religious" occurs quite a few times while "religion" itself is totally absent.
posted by speug at 11:33 PM on September 29, 2013


That might well be a translation artifact, but I don't know anywhere near enough Russian to find out.
posted by Blasdelb at 11:39 PM on September 29, 2013


There is generally, in countries where the government opposes american foreign policy, the idea that an elite controls America that acts against the will of the American people, who are generally considered to be decent but naive people.

I, uh... you visited the US lately?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:58 AM on September 30, 2013 [4 favorites]


While this is technically true, it sort of willfully misunderstands the way elections actually work in the USA-- it's been effectively direct election for a long time now.

President Gore would like a word.
posted by dhartung at 1:51 AM on September 30, 2013 [6 favorites]


> I, uh... you visited the US lately?

The passage you quote does not describe the US, it describes the perception of the US held by a certain set of people outside it.
posted by ardgedee at 2:20 AM on September 30, 2013


It might have been written and published striving for accuracy but seeing through a lens that was in some degree warped.

People living in a totalitarian country use doublespeak even when - or rather especially when - they are talking or writing about something important. Unless they are expecting not to be heard or read by anyone outside of their trusted circle (family, usually), and often even then.

Additionally, in case of important official publications like this encyclopaedia the control over the contents and wording was rather strict.
posted by hat_eater at 4:45 AM on September 30, 2013


For a project in the 90s, I spent a lot of time reading Russian histories of rock and roll. One of the fascinating aspects of them was how even the ones that were fairly anti-Soviet (the ones published in the late 80s and early 90s) based their history on what records the Soviet record label Melodiya had released. So the section on glam rock wouldn't mention David Bowie, but focused on the seminal glam act The Shocking Blue.

Conversely: My dad had a bookshelf devoted to the 1912 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. The entry on Communism reads: "A German political philosophy which enjoyed a brief vogue in Russian circa 1905, and has since sunk into obscurity."
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 5:40 AM on September 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Still reading. I noticed the Bill of Rights thing, too, but this also caught my eye.

The official language of the USA is English
Nope. Chuck Testa. I can't think of a propaganda reason for it, so I guess it's just a genuine mistake.
posted by yeolcoatl at 7:32 AM on September 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


In 1945 the USA dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9). This monstrous action in fact pursued political goals rather than military ones: the US ruling circles had calculated that the use of atomic bombs would ensure them of the leading role in the world arena after the war. Fulfilling its obligations as one of the Allies, the USSR entered the war against Japan on Aug. 9, 1945. The Soviet Union, with the participation of troops from the Mongolian People’s Republic, routed the main forces of the Japanese ground army, compelling Japan to surrender on Sept. 2, 1945. Japan was occupied by the American Army.
posted by yeolcoatl at 7:39 AM on September 30, 2013


> An interesting way to approach this is that none of it is propaganda, it's just the Russian intellectual class writing down what they know of American History for other members of the Russian intellectual class to read.

Interesting but utterly mistaken. Any official publication in the Soviet Union was rigorously vetted for ideological accuracy (hewing strictly to the party line), and none more so than the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Not a single word got in there without many levels of officials signing off on it, and when the party line changed, they would send you replacement pages to paste over the ones that were suddenly incorrect. (Not to mention that there was no "Russian intellectual class" in the Soviet Union; the intelligentsia was one of the first classes to be suppressed after the Revolution. There were, of course, intellectuals, as there are everywhere, but if they didn't want to spend their lives parroting the deadening official propaganda they had to go into the sciences or get jobs as janitors or something where nobody cared what they thought.)

> My dad had a bookshelf devoted to the 1912 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. The entry on Communism reads: "A German political philosophy which enjoyed a brief vogue in Russian circa 1905, and has since sunk into obscurity."

No it doesn't, for the simple reason that there was no entry on Communism in that encyclopedia. These things can be checked, you know; it's all online (Internet Archive: Volume 6, Châtelet to Constantine). On the other hand, there is a long and laudatory article on Marx ("The great scientific achievement of Marx lies, then, not in these conclusions, but in the details and yet more in the method and principles of his investigations in his philosophy of history. Here he has, as is now generally admitted, broken new ground and opened new ways and new outlooks"), laying out his theories in detail. And you know who wrote that article? Lenin.
posted by languagehat at 8:15 AM on September 30, 2013 [12 favorites]


Blasdelb: (the Englishman A. L. Webber, 1971)

I would like to henceforth be known as "the Englishman R. Steady". Note: I am not English.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:50 AM on September 30, 2013


Hunh! Okay, now I gotta call up my Dad and see what encyclopedia that actually was!
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 11:30 AM on September 30, 2013


« Older Here is a video of a dog you might want to watch.   |   This ain't chemistry. This is Art. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post