So the other day, my father began to rail against some American comedian who had congratulated Africa on France’s World Cup win, suggesting that the French team was so filled with African immigrants, that it was a de facto victory for Africa. He could not remember who the comedian was, but I had visions of not so long ago, when French bashing was all the rage in the United States, during the months and years leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and the months and years following. Perhaps most Americans have forgotten that ugly little chapter, when French wine was publicly spilled in the gutters, and French fries and French toast were renamed, with the word and concept "French" being replaced, irony of all ironies, with "Freedom," in local restaurants as well as very publicly in the cafeteria at Congress, to suit the neocon version of being politically correct at the time. There were calls to boycott all things French and anything from France, even though it hurt the economy of both countries, because that was the flavor of the moment.
Since then, I have always dreaded whenever France makes the news headlines here in the United States, whether it was something good or not. Yes, that was true even during the terrorist attacks, when most of the world would show sympathy, because I was sure that some neocon asshole would point and use these incidents as a prime example of the supposed weakness of France, or the sophisticated European approach to things. Indeed, there were actually examples of some politicians doing this here in the United States, as well, even though major terrorist incidents have also occurred in numerous other countries, including Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, Canada, and, of course, the United States.
That was why I approached France's World Cup victory with some measure of caution. On the one hand, being a French citizen, it was obviously an event to rejoice in. I had been there with my brother the last time that France won the World Cup, back in 1998. But that was the thing, too: I was in France itself. Everyone was celebrating in the streets, and so we got to experience that magical moment in it's fullness. But here in the United States, which still largely shows indifference to football/soccer, it was obviously different. And yes, I was half-expecting this new attention to France, positive as it may seem, to also be tinged with a new slate of criticisms and French jokes. It does not take much for anti-French sentiment to be stirred in the United States. Truth be told, there are a lot of harsh and judgmental anti-sentiments that are stirred a little too easily in the United States, as we see quite clearly in recent years. Right now, we have strong anti-immigrant (and more specifically, anti-Latino - especially anti-Mexican - and anti-Muslim) sentiment that seems to be the flavor of the moment for those who identify as being on the right. On the left, rather ironically, there seems to be a lot of anti-Russian sentiment, which not too long ago, was a favorite target of people on the right, who disliked the Russkies something fierce until maybe the early 1990's. Anyone who doubts that can see the wicked portrayals of Russians/Soviets in popular movies (think Rocky IV, for example). Indeed, part of me feared that this attention, and indeed any attention, to France, be it positive or negative, might awaken the narrow-minded who rely heavily upon silly but popular stereotypes to once again sound off about France, as well.
Yet, it did not happen. Or so I thought, until my father went off about this American comedian. He could not remember who it was, but he was a black comedian, and thought that his name began with Chris. I thought of Chris Tucker, who made a few comments against the French in one of those Rush Hour movies (the one in Paris, obviously). But Chris Tucker is not a comedian, exactly. For whatever the reason, I thought of Kevin Hart, but that seemed a bit unlikely, as he never seemed to have noticed the French one way or the other to my knowledge, for better or for worse.
Then, eventually, my father specified that this guy had a television show, and I frowned. The only black comedian with his own talk show that I could think of off the top of my head was Trevor Noah. But that did not make sense. First of all, Trevor Noah is not even fully American. He was from South Africa, although obviously, he lives here in the United States. Also, Noah generally is highly intelligent, and takes a more thoughtful approach to things. Surely, he would not resort to French bashing, would he?
Then, eventually, my father specified that this guy had a television show, and I frowned. The only black comedian with his own talk show that I could think of off the top of my head was Trevor Noah. But that did not make sense. First of all, Trevor Noah is not even fully American. He was from South Africa, although obviously, he lives here in the United States. Also, Noah generally is highly intelligent, and takes a more thoughtful approach to things. Surely, he would not resort to French bashing, would he?
Only I still remembered all too well that whole French bashing thing. True, it seemed to be more of a neocon thing, with people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh sounding off about France, or with comedians like Dennis Miller joking about chiseling off the armpit hair from the Statue of Liberty as a "favor" to France (maybe giving it back would have been a more charitable consideration from him). But then again, Jay Leno, who seemed to hold some progressive views on certain issues, and who was fairly well-respected by people on the left, seemed to make a good part of his career during those few years with favorite anti-French jokes. So did Howard Stern, who has made clear his general dislike of "the French." And there were some other comedians who were not as explicitly neocon in nature who also made a fair amount of anti-French jokes, as well.
Okay, so how bad will this be, then? That was my initial thought. Trevor Noah never struck me as someone who would be prejudice or close-minded on that level, but there were some other people that I would have assumed that of in other regards, who have proven to be more limited in their thinking than I expected them to be (not necessarily always related to France, by the way). Plus, we all have our prejudices. Certainly, somebody from South Africa who lived under apartheid would know that. Hell, anyone living in the present day United States should know that. And Noah had done both. Indeed, part of me half expected yet another tiresome anti-French rant, filled with references to how cowardly "the French" are and how their tanks only run in reverse, or how rude and arrogant (as if the very Americans making these claims are not themselves displaying the very traits that they are labeling on others). Or perhaps, how "the French" are supposed to have bad hygiene, or how the women in France (and Europe, more generally) do not shave their armpits. Or any other number of stupid stereotypes that always seem to win out on ratings, and which many Americans (far too many to be ignored or to chalk up as some isolated and insulated group, frankly) seem to know these jokes, and take them a little too literally.
However, I decided not to watch the Youtube video right then and there, with my father present, and seemingly watching to see if I would myself watch those videos. It would be better to watch it on my own time, without the pressure of someone watching me for my own reactions, one way or the other. This I did, and here was my own take on it.
Frankly, it was not anti-French. Not really, anyway. In fact, it reminded me of something that I had learned in college about how France traditionally interpreted being French. It differs than how Americans often identify as being Americans, although there are obviously some similarities. Noah focused on issues that he had with a certain interpretation of what "Frenchness" means to some French people, although he made some good points about it. My father had made me expect this to be a typical anti-French rant by an ignorant outsider, but frankly, it seemed far from that. Noah talked a bit about immigrants in France, and how and when and why they are perceived as "French," and how this can rightly be attributed to a certain colonial, or even racist, mindset. He made some good points, which I will get to shortly.
One thing that many people outside of France do not know, or perhaps simply do not appreciate, is how much immigration has shaped France. People from all over the world have come to France. Many from former colonies, and yes, that definitely plays a significant part in this particular story (it will be explained shortly). But also people from other parts of the world, including many parts of Europe, such as Poland. Andre the Giant, for example, was from a Polish family, and they even often spoke Polish at home.
That fact of the diversity that can be found in France is one of the main reasons why I always detested people classifying "the French" under one umbrella. Because indeed, like the United States, and Great Britain, and Canada, and Australia, France is, in many respects, a complicated mosaic of very different people. It is a nation of well over 60 million people, and there are all sorts of different kinds of people who are French, and not all of them, or even all but a small minority of them, fit the traditional stereotypes that far too many Americans, specifically, seem to have of "the French."
Perhaps people can take exception with certain aspects of French history. That I can understand. A lot of Americans in particularly cannot get past the military collapse of France during World War II, and that is understandable. I accept that France should be criticized for that in historical terms, as well as for much of the shadiness by too many French people during that era. There was the capitulation, and then the collusion with the Nazi regime by the puppet Vichy government. And many collaborators who helped the Nazis with deporting Jews.
And you can certainly also make an argument against France's colonialism on the other end of things. Whether it was the brutality displayed by France in establishing it's colonies worldwide, or the ruthless methods it employed in trying to defend them against independence movements, or the exploitation of resources and people in between, France's history regarding colonialism is dark. In many respects, if we are honest, many of the tensions that France now is witnessing regarding many of it's immigrants were created by, and are a residual of the mindset of, the French colonial mindset. The wars that they fought just years after World War II, in Indochina (which some wits also use as "proof" of the weakness and/or backwardness of French military capabilities) or in Algeria, where French forces were merciless enough in trying to put down the independence movement to receive worldwide condemnation, were also both very dark chapters in French history.
And you can certainly also make an argument against France's colonialism on the other end of things. Whether it was the brutality displayed by France in establishing it's colonies worldwide, or the ruthless methods it employed in trying to defend them against independence movements, or the exploitation of resources and people in between, France's history regarding colonialism is dark. In many respects, if we are honest, many of the tensions that France now is witnessing regarding many of it's immigrants were created by, and are a residual of the mindset of, the French colonial mindset. The wars that they fought just years after World War II, in Indochina (which some wits also use as "proof" of the weakness and/or backwardness of French military capabilities) or in Algeria, where French forces were merciless enough in trying to put down the independence movement to receive worldwide condemnation, were also both very dark chapters in French history.
Yes, those are horrific stories, and they constitute a reality in history.
France should indeed receive some harsh judgments for those episodes, although I never understood how some people, specifically far too many Americans, seem to define "the French" by some of these things, particularly the collapse and surrender during World War II. Yes, it was obviously not France's finest hour. However, the United States had no shortage of dark chapters in their closet that most Americans would not like to be defined by. After all, there was the massive genocide of Native Americans, which was seen as the worst crime in human history by some prior to the Holocaust, and which is still seen as such by some today. There was the persistence of slavery based on race, to the point that we fought a huge civil war to finally get rid of it. The state of Texas actually fought two wars with slavery as the central issue, and both times, the proud Texan Americans fought on the side of being pro-slavery. And once slavery officially ended, legalized strict racial segregation began in much of the country, while racism remained strong in the rest of the country. Since this country has generally never had an honest and frank discussion on racism, it has persisted as a majorly divisive issue to this day, and we are seeing the results with many shocked at how prevalent and out in the open racism and xenophobia more generally seems to be in the modern day United States. That, coupled with a few other issues, has earned Americans certain stereotypes around much of the world, as well. I saw some posts by foreigners about a supposedly typical American breakfast, with a stack of bacon on a plate, next to a Bible and a gun. Many Americans would feel offended by that portrayal, surely, and would feel it unfair. And another stereotype that seems to be gaining traction is that the American police are to be feared, resorting first to excessive use of force, often deadly force. Another stereotype is that of the loud, crass, and highly opinionated "ugly American," and that Americans in general do not care enough about the rest of the world to know anything about it, to the point that I remember seeing t-shirts in Canada that made fun of just how little Americans know about them. Again, many Americans would object (I have heard some American object to each of these stereotypes). But that does not mean that these stereotypes have gone away.
Anyway, back to Noah. Initially, he joked that Africa had won the World Cup, suggesting that France had used a team largely consisting of African immigrants to win this World Cup. This stirred some controversy, and Noah received a letter from the ambassador of France. My father took exception to Noah, reading this letter in public, when he felt it should have been a private letter between Noah and the ambassador. However, if Noah had not said anything about the letter, I suspect it would have been taken as essentially censoring him, not allowing his arguments the light of day. But the French ambassador is a public figure, and he was responding to a public issue, so I suspect that he had every expectation that the letter would go public, and my guess is that he wrote it specifically with the knowledge that it would go public. The one thing that I was far less than thrilled with was the accent that Noah used, which mimicked what he apparently believes to be a typical French accent, much to the delight of his audience. Not only did this not enhance his legitimate points but, frankly, I feel it detracted from them. Perhaps that is what turned my father off automatically from what Noah said, although that I cannot say for sure.
What he argued, in effect, was that the French have traditionally had a concept that there is such a thing as being French, certain traits and characteristics that French people share. The ambassador had argued that all but two of the 23 players on the World Cup championship team were born in France, and they were educated in France, played and mastered their football/soccer skills in France. That they are French citizens, and proud of their country. In short, these players reflect the diversity of France (when Noah read this, some audience members could be heard to disagree with this sentiment), although Noah suggested that the diversity of the team was likely more a reflection of France's colonialism. He may have a point there, because most of the players likely came from nations that used to be, indeed, French colonies.
Now, the audience plays a very vocal part in the video when Noah reads the part where the ambassador compares France's interpretation and understanding of what "Frenchness" is, versus how Americans often view themselves, and refer to different citizens through the prism of racial or ethnic distinctions (sometimes referred to, often disparagingly, as hyphenated Americans). Specifically, Noah quoted part of the ambassador's words from his letter, with the American audience audibly groaning or otherwise expressing their skepticism and disapproval as soon as the ambassador uses the United States as a base of comparison to the French approach:
"Unlike the United States of America, France does not refer to it's citizens based on race, religion, or origin. To us, their is no hyphenated identity.Roots are an individual reality. By calling them an African team it seems you are denying their Frenchness. This, even in jest, legitimizes the ideology which claims whiteness as the only definition of being French."
Again, perhaps predictably, some people are heard snickering in the audience. What Noah said next made sense (again, I could have done without the exaggerated French accent which, if anything, detracted from his point), but frankly, I am not certain that this is how the vocal audience members were thinking about it when they seemed to be dismissing any notion of France as a diverse nation.
Noah's point was asking why these players could not be both, French and African. He criticizes this interpretation of what being French is, saying that through this lens, effectively, immigrants (in this case African) have to erase their heredity in order to become French. He called it an achievement that many black people around the world celebrated, the fact that these players of African descent could become French and help win a world championship. However, he felt that strictly regarding them as "French" denied this duality. He also argued that too often, some French people deny people of color and originating from former French colonies any legitimacy in claims that they are French. He makes the argument that when these players win the World Cup, they are proudly hailed as French. When an African immigrant climbs four stories to save a baby in danger, he was given French citizenship, and Noah makes the rather powerful argument that this is overly convenient, that this man started his climb as an immigrant, and that once he reached the top and saved the baby, he secured his status as French. Had he dropped the baby, Noah argues, he would likely have gone back to the status of being an African immigrant, or the "other." Not French, in other words.
I do not deny his points in this regard, and truthfully, in fact, I agree with many, if not most of his points. If this is what is considered French bashing by Trevor Noah, I could live with it, because his arguments are, in fact, legitimate. It is an argument that I remember hearing about, and debating, in my college days, and often, that centered around the 1998 World Cup victory, which was still relatively fresh back then.
That said, however, I do take exception with Noah's use of what he apparently thinks is the French accent, which puts many of these things in a very different context based on his tone. He is, after all, a comedian. He wants to entertain, wants to amuse, and in catering to an American audience, he used a supposedly French accent to portray a certain mentality that he attributes to both Nazis and white supremacists in France, but also seems to suggest, indirectly, that the ambassador himself shares these views and this kind of exclusion, while the ambassador was actually embracing France's diversity, something that it was hard not to notice Noah seemed not so keen to talk about.
Noah's arguments are legitimate, but his persistence in undermining his own points by taking a mocking tone with his apparently typical French accent does the legitimacy of his own otherwise valid arguments a disservice. The French ambassador took time out of his schedule to write Noah a letter, explaining his position, and Noah essentially took to the airwaves to mock the letter, thereby effectively nullifying another, competing, viewpoint that Noah clearly did not agree with. I still like Noah and think that he is highly intelligent and insightful, but why he chose to take this approach is, frankly, a bit puzzling, and quite disappointing.
This was not the frankly obnoxious French bashing of angry (and mostly WASP) Americans that became so popular leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and the couple of years afterward. However, Noah could have taken a more serious approach if he wanted to make serious points, as he apparently wanted to do. He pretty much said many things that I have felt myself regarding "Frenchness," while he seemed to cater a little too much to Americans interpretation of how open they are, at a time when we have a President and a political party in power here in the United States that reflects quite the opposite.
If you think that I am being overly sensitive on the subject, let's revisit certain arguments that Noah himself uses sometimes. The context of jokes is different based on who's saying them right? If a white person does not understand why his or her use of the N-word would be offensive, when so many black people refer to each other using the word, Noah would jump on this hypocrisy. So why would he does not (or refuses to) see that his use of what he again seems to think of as a French accent is most definitely not appropriate here, and actually seriously undermines any and all points, however legitimate they might be? If you could argue that Noah himself does not intentionally try to mock the French with his accent here, it is nevertheless clearly taken as such by his predominately if not exclusively, American audience, which seems only too willing to play along, expecting reaffirmations of their own beliefs in French stereotypes. Noah might argue whether a white person would use the N-word, or make that black joke, if a black person is present, which would be a way of telling if a joke might be deemed racist. If that white person would not be comfortable making that joke or using that word in the presence of a black person, then it is probably racist. I agree with that, to boot. Context is everything. But would Noah himself have used that stupid accent if the French ambassador, or indeed any French person, had been present? Would he have dared to do that before a French audience in France? My guess is probably not. And if the answer is no, then maybe Noah should look at himself in this case. It is more than a little disappointing, truth be told. I will not lump Noah as a French-basher, but I will say that personally, I had a better opinion, and better overall expectations, of Noah before this, and it is hard not to think a bit lesser of him afterwards.
Frankly, he could have handled this one better.
France should indeed receive some harsh judgments for those episodes, although I never understood how some people, specifically far too many Americans, seem to define "the French" by some of these things, particularly the collapse and surrender during World War II. Yes, it was obviously not France's finest hour. However, the United States had no shortage of dark chapters in their closet that most Americans would not like to be defined by. After all, there was the massive genocide of Native Americans, which was seen as the worst crime in human history by some prior to the Holocaust, and which is still seen as such by some today. There was the persistence of slavery based on race, to the point that we fought a huge civil war to finally get rid of it. The state of Texas actually fought two wars with slavery as the central issue, and both times, the proud Texan Americans fought on the side of being pro-slavery. And once slavery officially ended, legalized strict racial segregation began in much of the country, while racism remained strong in the rest of the country. Since this country has generally never had an honest and frank discussion on racism, it has persisted as a majorly divisive issue to this day, and we are seeing the results with many shocked at how prevalent and out in the open racism and xenophobia more generally seems to be in the modern day United States. That, coupled with a few other issues, has earned Americans certain stereotypes around much of the world, as well. I saw some posts by foreigners about a supposedly typical American breakfast, with a stack of bacon on a plate, next to a Bible and a gun. Many Americans would feel offended by that portrayal, surely, and would feel it unfair. And another stereotype that seems to be gaining traction is that the American police are to be feared, resorting first to excessive use of force, often deadly force. Another stereotype is that of the loud, crass, and highly opinionated "ugly American," and that Americans in general do not care enough about the rest of the world to know anything about it, to the point that I remember seeing t-shirts in Canada that made fun of just how little Americans know about them. Again, many Americans would object (I have heard some American object to each of these stereotypes). But that does not mean that these stereotypes have gone away.
Anyway, back to Noah. Initially, he joked that Africa had won the World Cup, suggesting that France had used a team largely consisting of African immigrants to win this World Cup. This stirred some controversy, and Noah received a letter from the ambassador of France. My father took exception to Noah, reading this letter in public, when he felt it should have been a private letter between Noah and the ambassador. However, if Noah had not said anything about the letter, I suspect it would have been taken as essentially censoring him, not allowing his arguments the light of day. But the French ambassador is a public figure, and he was responding to a public issue, so I suspect that he had every expectation that the letter would go public, and my guess is that he wrote it specifically with the knowledge that it would go public. The one thing that I was far less than thrilled with was the accent that Noah used, which mimicked what he apparently believes to be a typical French accent, much to the delight of his audience. Not only did this not enhance his legitimate points but, frankly, I feel it detracted from them. Perhaps that is what turned my father off automatically from what Noah said, although that I cannot say for sure.
What he argued, in effect, was that the French have traditionally had a concept that there is such a thing as being French, certain traits and characteristics that French people share. The ambassador had argued that all but two of the 23 players on the World Cup championship team were born in France, and they were educated in France, played and mastered their football/soccer skills in France. That they are French citizens, and proud of their country. In short, these players reflect the diversity of France (when Noah read this, some audience members could be heard to disagree with this sentiment), although Noah suggested that the diversity of the team was likely more a reflection of France's colonialism. He may have a point there, because most of the players likely came from nations that used to be, indeed, French colonies.
Now, the audience plays a very vocal part in the video when Noah reads the part where the ambassador compares France's interpretation and understanding of what "Frenchness" is, versus how Americans often view themselves, and refer to different citizens through the prism of racial or ethnic distinctions (sometimes referred to, often disparagingly, as hyphenated Americans). Specifically, Noah quoted part of the ambassador's words from his letter, with the American audience audibly groaning or otherwise expressing their skepticism and disapproval as soon as the ambassador uses the United States as a base of comparison to the French approach:
"Unlike the United States of America, France does not refer to it's citizens based on race, religion, or origin. To us, their is no hyphenated identity.Roots are an individual reality. By calling them an African team it seems you are denying their Frenchness. This, even in jest, legitimizes the ideology which claims whiteness as the only definition of being French."
Again, perhaps predictably, some people are heard snickering in the audience. What Noah said next made sense (again, I could have done without the exaggerated French accent which, if anything, detracted from his point), but frankly, I am not certain that this is how the vocal audience members were thinking about it when they seemed to be dismissing any notion of France as a diverse nation.
Noah's point was asking why these players could not be both, French and African. He criticizes this interpretation of what being French is, saying that through this lens, effectively, immigrants (in this case African) have to erase their heredity in order to become French. He called it an achievement that many black people around the world celebrated, the fact that these players of African descent could become French and help win a world championship. However, he felt that strictly regarding them as "French" denied this duality. He also argued that too often, some French people deny people of color and originating from former French colonies any legitimacy in claims that they are French. He makes the argument that when these players win the World Cup, they are proudly hailed as French. When an African immigrant climbs four stories to save a baby in danger, he was given French citizenship, and Noah makes the rather powerful argument that this is overly convenient, that this man started his climb as an immigrant, and that once he reached the top and saved the baby, he secured his status as French. Had he dropped the baby, Noah argues, he would likely have gone back to the status of being an African immigrant, or the "other." Not French, in other words.
I do not deny his points in this regard, and truthfully, in fact, I agree with many, if not most of his points. If this is what is considered French bashing by Trevor Noah, I could live with it, because his arguments are, in fact, legitimate. It is an argument that I remember hearing about, and debating, in my college days, and often, that centered around the 1998 World Cup victory, which was still relatively fresh back then.
That said, however, I do take exception with Noah's use of what he apparently thinks is the French accent, which puts many of these things in a very different context based on his tone. He is, after all, a comedian. He wants to entertain, wants to amuse, and in catering to an American audience, he used a supposedly French accent to portray a certain mentality that he attributes to both Nazis and white supremacists in France, but also seems to suggest, indirectly, that the ambassador himself shares these views and this kind of exclusion, while the ambassador was actually embracing France's diversity, something that it was hard not to notice Noah seemed not so keen to talk about.
Noah's arguments are legitimate, but his persistence in undermining his own points by taking a mocking tone with his apparently typical French accent does the legitimacy of his own otherwise valid arguments a disservice. The French ambassador took time out of his schedule to write Noah a letter, explaining his position, and Noah essentially took to the airwaves to mock the letter, thereby effectively nullifying another, competing, viewpoint that Noah clearly did not agree with. I still like Noah and think that he is highly intelligent and insightful, but why he chose to take this approach is, frankly, a bit puzzling, and quite disappointing.
This was not the frankly obnoxious French bashing of angry (and mostly WASP) Americans that became so popular leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and the couple of years afterward. However, Noah could have taken a more serious approach if he wanted to make serious points, as he apparently wanted to do. He pretty much said many things that I have felt myself regarding "Frenchness," while he seemed to cater a little too much to Americans interpretation of how open they are, at a time when we have a President and a political party in power here in the United States that reflects quite the opposite.
If you think that I am being overly sensitive on the subject, let's revisit certain arguments that Noah himself uses sometimes. The context of jokes is different based on who's saying them right? If a white person does not understand why his or her use of the N-word would be offensive, when so many black people refer to each other using the word, Noah would jump on this hypocrisy. So why would he does not (or refuses to) see that his use of what he again seems to think of as a French accent is most definitely not appropriate here, and actually seriously undermines any and all points, however legitimate they might be? If you could argue that Noah himself does not intentionally try to mock the French with his accent here, it is nevertheless clearly taken as such by his predominately if not exclusively, American audience, which seems only too willing to play along, expecting reaffirmations of their own beliefs in French stereotypes. Noah might argue whether a white person would use the N-word, or make that black joke, if a black person is present, which would be a way of telling if a joke might be deemed racist. If that white person would not be comfortable making that joke or using that word in the presence of a black person, then it is probably racist. I agree with that, to boot. Context is everything. But would Noah himself have used that stupid accent if the French ambassador, or indeed any French person, had been present? Would he have dared to do that before a French audience in France? My guess is probably not. And if the answer is no, then maybe Noah should look at himself in this case. It is more than a little disappointing, truth be told. I will not lump Noah as a French-basher, but I will say that personally, I had a better opinion, and better overall expectations, of Noah before this, and it is hard not to think a bit lesser of him afterwards.
Frankly, he could have handled this one better.
No comments:
Post a Comment