Skip

The forgotten people
November 30, 2009 8:04 AM   Subscribe

Western Sahara has the dubious distinction of being the subject of probably the most forgotten-about post-colonial conflict in the world. Until 1975, the Spanish government considered Western Sahara a Spanish province, just as much an integral part of its territory as any of its provinces in the Iberian peninsula. However, at the beginning of the 70s, a burgeoning pro-independence movement, and increasing appetites of its Northern and Southern neighbours, Marocco and Mauritania, led to a UN visiting mission in early 1975, which found that "there was an overwhelming consensus among Saharans within the Territory in favour of independence and opposing integration with any neighbouring country". This finding was given additional support by an opinion by the International Court of Justice supporting the Sahrawis right to self-determination against the claims of neighbouring nations.

In response, Hassan II of Morocco launched the "Green March", a "civilian invasion" of Western Saharan territory, secretly doubled by a military invasion of Western Sahara's North-East to pre-empt any Algerian intervention.
As General Franco slowly agonised, a Spanish government in disarray negotiated the cession of Western Sahara to Morocco and Mauritania in exchange for a continued Spanish interest in Western Sahara's bountiful phosphate mines.
The Spanish army and administration (much to their own anger and frustration) were thus ordered to suddenly leave on February 26th 1976, suddenly abandoning their until then compatriots to the tender care of their neighbours. Morocco and Mauritania had however underestimated the resistance of the Sahrawis, who mostly continued to fight for their independence under the leadership of the Frente Polisario, with Algerian support, until a UN-brokered ceasefire in 1991. In the meantime, Mauritania had abandoned its claim, but Morocco had taken control of nearly all the territory.
Under the conditions of the ceasefire, a self-determination referendum should have taken place shortly afterwards. However, Morocco has been procrastinating ever since. In the meantime, 100,000 Sahrawi refugees, and (until 2005) Moroccan POWs, have continued to languish in refugee camps in Tindouf (Algeria).
Since two weeks, a last, bizarre act in the Sahrawi struggle is being played out in Lanzarote (Spain). Upon her return to Western Sahara from the US, where she had received the Robert F. Kennedy's Peace Prize, Sahrawi peace activist Amitanu Haidar saw her (Moroccan) passport confiscated and herself expelled to Lanzarote. Inexplicably, the Spanish authorities first accepted her into Spanish territory despite her lack of proper documentation, and then refused her boarding on the return flight because that same lack of documentation. Seeing herself effectively exiled from her homeland with the connivence of the Spanish government, Haidar has entered a hunger strike, and refused to collaborate with the attempts of the Spanish government to make amends by offering her refugee status first, and then Spanish citizenship.
posted by Skeptic (35 comments total) 19 users marked this as a favorite

 
If only they possessed some resource valuable enough to merit US intervention...
posted by leotrotsky at 8:21 AM on November 30, 2009


If there's anything to be said about the Spanish powers-of-the-day flavor through all the ages, is that they indefatigably and without exception fuck up all their postcolonial dealings in the most shameful ways. Going strong since the early 1800's, man! Viva!
posted by Iosephus at 8:23 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


Actually, leotrotsky, that's probably been their problem all along...
posted by Skeptic at 8:27 AM on November 30, 2009


I'm trying to get my head around why exactly the Sahrawi people are so adamant for an independent state. Would they be served any better by this?
posted by Burhanistan at 8:27 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


One of the few ways that the world gets reminded of the Western Sahara and the Sahrawis is a small marathon run through the Sahara. Obviously, running 42km (26mi) in loose sand in the Sahara is another way of taking a marathon to an entirely new level of pain. PBS's WideAngle did an interesting story on it a few years back. The footage of the refuge camps and the utter invisibility of this issue was rather depressing.
posted by SeanOfTheHillPeople at 8:29 AM on November 30, 2009


Don't most indigenous groups, particularly in underdeveloped countries and territories, want autonomy?

I hope this moves towards resolution soon...perhaps WS is "forgotten" in terms of media coverage, but map-gazers like myself have always been curious and interested, the last slice of land big enough to see on a globe that is "disputed" and unresolved by most or all accounts.
posted by mreleganza at 8:32 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm trying to get my head around why exactly the Sahrawi people are so adamant for an independent state.

Self-determination is usually considered a good in itself, despite economic and other disadvantages. Off the top of my head, Montenegrins and Kosovars and Faroese and Timorese can probably offer a welter of reasons why.
posted by kittyprecious at 8:32 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


Burhanistan I'm not overly optimistic about the Polisario Front leaders, but I can understand why Sahrawis may feel that they'd be better served if the wealth from half the world's phosphate reserves was reinvested in their territory, rather than being used to sustain the rock star lifestyle of "His Majetski". Besides, Morocco alleges that the refugees are "Algerian" and doesn't exactly make easy to them to return to their own country.
posted by Skeptic at 8:35 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


Off the top of my head, Montenegrins and Kosovars and Faroese and Timorese can probably offer a welter of reasons why.

I don't know about the Europeans (and apologies if I'm missing that you're being a bit sarcastic there), but the Timorese have not done well at since seceding from the Republic of Indonesia. There has been mass unrest, labor flight, and increasing poverty there. The best the Sahrawis could hope for is a mineral development deal with a transnational that isn't massively unfair to the rank and file citizen.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:37 AM on November 30, 2009


Awesome post.
One thing I wanted to add though - the wall around western Sahara. (BBC Mundo)
considered the second longest wall in the world after the Great Wall of China. 2700km.

English wikipedia page.

With tens of thousands of landmines to boot. Not sure what else to say about it .. but .. what a depressing, forgotten situation. How long does it take to remove landmines?
posted by circle_b at 8:37 AM on November 30, 2009


the Timorese have not done well at since seceding from the Republic of Indonesia.

I was being serious: there are (as you note) a ton of disadvantages, but as a truism independence is often valued out of proportion to the consequences.
posted by kittyprecious at 8:40 AM on November 30, 2009


but as a truism independence is often valued out of proportion to the consequences.

Ah, ok. I see you were speaking to the idea rather than advocating independence. The cynic in me views this idea as usually coming from an outsider to the ethnic group or colony in question who has something to gain from the upheaval.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:54 AM on November 30, 2009


the Timorese have not done well at since seceding from the Republic of Indonesia

It's a (depressing) truth, that. However, even their current dismal situation is a step up from genocide, I think. There are, BTW, strong parallels between East Timor and Western Sahara. Both were decolonised late, by colonisers facing serious problems of their own and in the middle of painful transitions to democracy. Both were abandoned to powerful, cruel neighbours, almost at the same time. In both cases, the occupiers were supported, and even encouraged by the Ford Administration, driven by Henry Kissinger.

The difference is that later Portuguese governments at least made a show of helping the Timorese in their plight, and were ultimately instrumental in obtaining Timorese independence. Spanish governments of any political sign have all been shamefully subservient to Morocco in this matter, and this despite strong popular support for the Sahrawis in Spain (if there's one thing rank-and-file right- and left-wingers in Spain can agree about is their indignation about the abandonment of the Sahrawis: you'll see the same white-hot anger in leftist pro-Sahara activists, than among right-wing army veterans).
posted by Skeptic at 8:55 AM on November 30, 2009 [2 favorites]


The case of Amitanu Haidar truely sucks. Spain was originally the cause of the problem and as skeptic points out does not push Morocco on the issue, maybe because of the huge gas imports and also because of the two disputed enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla.
For many years local Mallorquian families host Sahrawi kids in their homes for a couple of months during the summer. The main way they can get financial help directly back to the families is to sew money into the kids clothes anything else they send back gets stolen by "security".
87% of young Sarahawis want to emigrate.
The Sahara Press Service gives updates and has an archive back to 2003
posted by adamvasco at 9:39 AM on November 30, 2009


If only they possessed some resource valuable enough to merit US intervention...

For the record, American soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines do serve in the U.N. Peacekeeping Missions for MINURSO. Active U.S. intervention probably wouldn't be a good thing, though. The Moroccan government is buddy-buddy with the U.S. (they're often pragmatic go-along types with Western powers). The Sawharis, on the other hand, are a populist Muslim movement (something the U.S. is generally afraid of).

The U.S. is also loathe to side against Morocco because Morocco was the first government to recognize America's independence two centuries ago. I know that seems like ridiculous trivia more than an honest-to-goodness basis for diplomatic favor, but it's cited every single time someone questions America's resistance to supporting the Sawharis.
posted by aswego at 9:54 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


There's not many people there, the bulk of them being military. The youth I met in Laayoune were very secretive about talking with me -- always glancing over their shoulders. Whether or not it was necessary, they definitely percieved a threat...
posted by iamck at 9:54 AM on November 30, 2009


The Sawharis, on the other hand, are a populist Muslim movement (something the U.S. is generally afraid of).

Huh?! The Polisario Front isn't any more Muslim than Morocco. In fact, the reason why Kissinger very strongly sided against them is that he saw them (with some reason) as a bunch of godless Commies. Moreover, Hassan II very adroitly played the Islam card back in '75: it wasn't called the "Green March" for nothing, and if you watch the linked video you'll see that the demonstrators were waving copies of the Koran alongside Moroccan and even US flags (all thoughtfully provided by the Moroccan security services).
posted by Skeptic at 10:02 AM on November 30, 2009


a populist Muslim movement (something the U.S. is generally afraid of)

Speaking as a Muslim who generally distrusts US foreign policy, the US doesn't really give a rat's ass about Islam one way or the other. What they do get upset with is groups and regimes that refuse to toe the line with trade agreements and other economic "reforms". Religion is sometimes used as propaganda and window dressing, but the Great Shaytan will happily sell you copies of the Qu'ran or copies of Hustler with little distinction.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:13 AM on November 30, 2009 [4 favorites]


Huh?! The Polisario Front isn't any more Muslim than Morocco. In fact, the reason why Kissinger very strongly sided against them is that he saw them (with some reason) as a bunch of godless Commies. Moreover, Hassan II very adroitly played the Islam card back in '75: it wasn't called the "Green March" for nothing, and if you watch the linked video you'll see that the demonstrators were waving copies of the Koran alongside Moroccan and even US flags (all thoughtfully provided by the Moroccan security services).

Sloppy language on my part. I didn't mean to imply they favored an Islamic government along the lines or Iran or anything. More that they should be distinguished from governments in predominantly Muslim countries like Morocco (or Jordan or Egypt) that are often accused of compromising in order to curry favor from Western powers. It really is the "populism" part that scares the U.S., in the sense that there's not a government there America thinks it can work with.
posted by aswego at 10:15 AM on November 30, 2009


In fact, the reason why Kissinger very strongly sided against them is that he saw them (with some reason) as a bunch of godless Commies.

Which circles back to the Timor parallels again.
posted by gimonca at 10:47 AM on November 30, 2009


Of note is that the Organization of African Unity and its successor, the African Union (although at a nascent state compared with its European cousin) have excluded Morocco from membership and admitted the government in exile of Western Sahara. Most recently the Pan-African Parliament passed a resolution pressuring Morocco to release several human rights activists. The AU defines the situation as a colonial occupation, and is considering heightened sanctions including exclusion from the FIFA tournament.

The Bush administration signed a Free Trade Agreement with Morocco in 2006.

The U.S. is also loathe to side against Morocco because Morocco was the first government to recognize America's independence two centuries ago.

Nah. That looks good on the embassy website (or name-checked by Obama in ... Cairo, odd), but it's much more important to Washington that Rabat has been a reliable friend among Arab countries and has tendered many services public and private as a go-between.
posted by dhartung at 10:47 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


Rabat has been a reliable friend among Arab countries and has tendered many services public and private as a go-between.

They also consistently re-up on the crack shipments.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:28 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


America's friend has "black sites" and CIA torture centres for extraordinary rendition prisoners.
posted by adamvasco at 11:29 AM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


The AU defines the situation as a colonial occupation, and is considering heightened sanctions including exclusion from the FIFA tournament.
That's the World Cup. How would the AU be able to keep Morocco out of the World Cup? I know RSA is hosting it, but there's no way South Africa would go along with an AU boycott that FIFA didn't approve (and there's no reason to think they would approve it). That's the kind of posturing that keeps the rest of the world from taking the AU seriously.
posted by GeckoDundee at 5:41 PM on November 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


Expanding on adamvasco's comment, it's not only in mallorca but in the whole of spain where some 10.000 saharaui kids ages 8 to 12 spend the months of july and august with spanish families.

This happens under the program "Vacaciones en paz", but it's not just holidays, it's a way to get proper medical attention for the kids, and create social awareness of the problem. Some of their spanish "relatives" end up visiting the sahara, bringing all the support they possibly can (mostly medicines and apparel).
posted by valdesm at 2:42 AM on December 1, 2009


In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

too soon?
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:17 AM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


I don't know, I just think this is another area where the long reach of the US is screwing things up again. Supposedly in the last few years they just built a huge (US) military base north of Rabat, they have all kinds of USAID programs running in the country (for example, teaching Moroccan judges how to properly administer the democratic process, what a lark), and they've been very quiet since the forays by Baker back in 1997.

Given the Moroccan government's treatment of its own citizens, the corresponding poor treatment of Saharawis is not at all surprising. Morocco won't give up the area willingly, and the US won't put pressure on them for other reasons, some of them mentioned by adamvasco. Spain's interest in this is hardly altruistic, either - it diverts attention from them plundering the fish off the coasts of Morocco, and also from the ridiculous colonies of Ceuta and Melilla, etc...

As for Morocco's current stance, it doesn't show any signs of easing.

From a speech made by King Mohammad VI on Nov. 6 :

“Would any democratic country accept the use of democracy and human rights as a pretext … for a gang of outlaws to plot, in intelligence with its enemies, against its unity and higher interests?” he said in a speech broadcast on state television.

“The time of double-games and evasion is over,” he said. “It is time for clarity and for assuming your duty. You are either a patriot or a traitor. There is no half-way house between patriotism and treason.”

Oh, gosh, I wonder where he picked up that idea. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." And of course, Morocco is styling the Saharawi resistance as terrorists.
posted by HopperFan at 8:10 AM on December 1, 2009


ridiculous colonies of Ceuta and Melilla

Huh? I mean, I don't want to appear to be a jingoist or anything, but Ceuta and Melilla have a combined population of 150,000 (which is more than Western Sahara ever did), and a large majority of that population (including most the sizeable Muslim, mostly Berber minority) has as little appetite to become Moroccan or to leave their homes as the Sahrawis ever did. Before calling those cities "ridiculous colonies" you should perhaps try to have a conversation with some of the inhabitants, people who have been living there for many generations (those places have been Spanish since way before the US was founded).

And yes, I know, pot, kettle, black, Gibraltar and all that. I also believe that if the Gibraltarians don't want to be Spanish (and I reckon that they clearly very majoritarily don't), they should be left in peace, even if action should be taken against the blatant money-laundering and tax evasion there, just as action should be taken against the equally blatant smuggling going on in Ceuta and Melilla.
posted by Skeptic at 10:34 AM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


"a large majority of that population (including most the sizeable Muslim, mostly Berber minority) has as little appetite to become Moroccan or to leave their homes"

Well, of course they don't want to become part of Morocco, because then they wouldn't have access to Spain/Europe anymore. So what if they've been Spanish for a brief blip in history, things change. If they didn't, the people of Western Sahara would have no argument for wanting to have their own country, since they never were one.

The Spanish colonies are ridiculous in that they're a couple of isolated cities that end up being a major destination for thousands of sub-Saharan Africans, merely because of the possibilities for escaping to Spain. Not to mention all the illegal contraband that enters Morocco via those two cities.

I actually have talked to people from Ceuta. I suspect you haven't.
posted by HopperFan at 11:36 AM on December 1, 2009


And frankly, I find it difficult to believe that anything printed/posted on this issue from Spanish or Moroccan sources is unbiased.
posted by HopperFan at 11:39 AM on December 1, 2009


Lastly (I hope this is my last bit, anyway) - I really don't think the Moroccan makhzen will be convinced by arguments that Saharawis should have complete independence, as the Polisario is insisting on.

Why? Because it opens up a huge can of worms about another ethnic group, the Imazighen.
posted by HopperFan at 11:53 AM on December 1, 2009


Well, of course they don't want to become part of Morocco, because then they wouldn't have access to Spain/Europe anymore.

I actually have family and friends from Ceuta, and I can assure you that would be the least of their worries. (Also, even if the cities became Moroccan, that wouldn't mean that its inhabitants could legally lose their Spanish citizenship. Indeed, recent court rulings in Spain have indicated that even the Sahrawis have a legal claim for Spanish citizenship.)

So what if they've been Spanish for a brief blip in history, things change.

"What if they have been Kuwaiti..."
"What if they have been Polish..."

If they didn't, the people of Western Sahara would have no argument for wanting to have their own country, since they never were one.

Why don't you go read the 1975 ruling of the ICJ which I linked to in the FPP? It made it abundantly clear that:

a) Western Sahara wasn't "terra nullius" before the Spanish colonisation.
b) Its inhabitants weren't bound by allegiance to either Morocco or Mauritania.

So, they were a country, or at least a collection of sovereign tribes.

I really don't think the Moroccan makhzen will be convinced by arguments that Saharawis should have complete independence

Pointless, since Morocco actually agreed to a referendum on self-determination back in 1991. Of course, you could argue that Morocco never intended to honour its promise (at least not if there was the slightest chance that they'd lose the referendum). You'd have a point.

Why? Because it opens up a huge can of worms about another ethnic group, the Imazighen.

Are you seriously defending Morocco's case on the base that if it ended its illegal occupation of Western Sahara, it would create it problems in its reppression of internal ethnic groups? That isn't a very ethical position, is it?

The Spanish colonies are ridiculous in that they're a couple of isolated cities that end up being a major destination for thousands of sub-Saharan Africans, merely because of the possibilities for escaping to Spain.

That would make the whole country of Malta "ridiculous" then, since its geographical situation and EU membership places it in a very similar quandary. "Inconveniently located" isn't the same thing as ridiculous.

Not to mention all the illegal contraband that enters Morocco via those two cities.

I did mention that in my own post, and I agree there should be a crackdown. However, ending the contraband lies mostly in Moroccan hands. This isn't drugs we are talking about (those mostly flow in the opposite direction), but groceries, electrical appliances, and the like. If there is a market for smuggled goods, it's because the Moroccan powers-that-be, starting with the king, hand over lucrative import monopolies to friends and family, which enriches the happy few at the cost of putting many household wares well outside the reach of the average Moroccan. (Going back to Gibraltar, I also agree that the most effective way to limit money laundering on the Rock would be for Spain to crack down on the ridiculous corruption and real estate speculation in the neighbouring Costa del Sol. Fat chance too).

And frankly, I find it difficult to believe that anything printed/posted on this issue from Spanish or Moroccan sources is unbiased.

No source is entirely unbiased. However, there is a strong difference between Spanish and Moroccan sources, in that there's a strong freedom of speech in Spain which allows highly critical voices. You'll hardly find any Spaniard who thinks that our government's handling of the Western Sahara question has been anything other than entirely shameful. Things are very different in Morocco, where any criticism of the royal family whatsoever is severely punished.

I've been to Morocco, even had the honour of being personally toppled into the cold Atlantic waters by the royal jetski. (Mohammed VI, apart from an authoritarian ruler and the son of a bloody tyrant, is also a very, very inconsiderate jetskier). What struck me, even compared with other Third World countries I've been to, including some notorious dictatorships, was the personality cult around the monarch, and the pervasive nationalist propaganda, which strongly contrasted with the screaming social inequality. I've never seen anything similar apart from Romania under Ceaucescu.
posted by Skeptic at 1:12 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Ah, I see, you're a Spaniard.

1. Kuwait and Poland vs. Ceuta and Melilla, not exactly apples to oranges.

2. I've read the ICJ's decision. I'm sure you noted what it said there - "The opinion of the Court was interpreted differently by the different parties, and each focused on what it sees as supporting its claims."

3. No, I don't think they intended to honor that, if the Saharawis decided on full independence.

4. Who's defending Morocco's treatment of indigenous groups? I'm saying that if the Western Sahara gained independence, based on the fact (among others), that they were a collection of sovereign tribes, what fuel that might provide for Imazighen nationalist sympathies. And that might be a good thing.

5. Smuggling - sure, a certain type of drug flows one way out of Morocco, and we all know what that is. There's a lot of others that come in from Spain. How's the Ceuta border fence working out so far, eh? You know, the one that Spain constructed to cut down on smuggling?

6. Personality cult, hah. I've seen far more nationalist propoganda in the States than I ever did in Morocco. As for punishing those who criticize the king, that's true - press freedoms are severely limited there.

"Indeed, recent court rulings in Spain have indicated that even the Sahrawis have a legal claim for Spanish citizenship." Oh really, how interesting. I'm sure there isn't any political maneuvering behind that decision.

Any source from Spain commenting on Morocco, while it may have freedom of speech behind it, usually has the same colonialist bent as it always did - "We know what's best for you."
posted by HopperFan at 7:22 AM on December 2, 2009


1. The "blip in history" argument was attempted to justify both the invasions of Poland and Kuwait, two countries which have been independent for far less time than Ceuta and Melilla have been Spanish. In all cases this is wrong: frontiers shouldn't be changed without the assentment of the populations involved, period.

2. I'm not sure we are talking about the same text:

On the other hand, the Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie or territorial sovereignity between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found any legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.

Quite a clear-cut opinion, that. Of course, Morocco did attempt to twist the meaning of the decision in one of the most outrageous exercises in blackwhite in the history of diplomacy. Nobody followed Morocco in its assessment, except, crucially, Henry Kissinger.

5. The drug smuggling in either direction hardly goes through Ceuta and Melilla. Drug traffickers prefer the direct sea route (which doesn't appear to give them much trouble either).

6. There is a personality cult. It is more sophisticated in the case of M6 than it was for his father (he employs more PR people, and fewer torturers), but it is a personality cult nonetheless, as you'll notice if you start counting the pervasive portraits. As for the nationalist propaganda, I was once submitted to a history lesson by a young Moroccan Special Forces veteran, and his portrayal of the "Algerian nomads" of Western Sahara, and how it was Morocco's burden to "civilise them" somewhat jarred with reality, but appears to be the (well cared for) vox populi in Morocco.

If somebody has a "colonialist bent" then Morocco's Francophone and Francophile elite, who feels more at home in the Champs Élysées than in Casablanca (never mind the Northern Moroccan towns like Tétouan or Nador).

As for my own alleged "colonialist bent", frankly, considering my knowledge of history and the hundred ways in which Spain fucked up its relationship with Morocco in the last couple centuries of so, I wouldn't count on it. Let's see: second earliest aerial bombing -Ben Karrach, 1913-, bloodiest defeat in a colonial war, first use of poison gas in a colonial war, the occupation of Tangier during WWII, and so on to the abandonment of the Sahrawis and, most recently, the ludicrous "Battle of Parsley Island" (although Moroccan jingoism and His Majetski's vanity were also clearly to blame in the latest case). No, I hardly consider that Spain knows what's best for Morocco, but I don't think that Morocco's ruling elite is on the good path either.
posted by Skeptic at 1:20 PM on December 2, 2009


OK, now we're on to Leila Island (not Parsley Island), and you're bringing up opinions from a "Moroccan Special Forces" guy who was likely an Arab, not Amazigh, so it's clear we're not going to agree. We have completely different views of Morocco, and this discussion is getting us nowhere.

Setting all that aside...

I just don't think that the Western Sahara has a clear cut case for independence, not that my opinion matters much, as I'm not Moroccan or Saharawi. It's the same question that Burhanistan asked earlier - "I'm trying to get my head around why exactly the Sahrawi people are so adamant for an independent state. Would they be served any better by this?"

This wouldn't be even on the radar if Morocco hadn't been so atrociously heavy-handed in their management (if you can call it that) of the area and inhabitants.

I think the post is biased, overall. Good day to you.
posted by HopperFan at 4:34 PM on December 2, 2009


« Older Abyssal chthonic resonator   |   Marie Severin, First Lady of the Silver Age Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post