Romney, and Aryan Racial Theory as a basis for Foreign Policy

I heard Mitt Romney’s tepid and unremarkable foreign policy speech, which had a lot of posturing but no substance, on Tuesday. I was taken aback when he said, “I will leave Reno this evening on a trip abroad that will take me to England…”

England?

Well, I thought, the other parts of the United Kingdom– Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland– are going to be miffed that he only came to see the English. People in the UK are still probably not entirely used to being called Britons, but most would prefer that to English where that is not what they are.

Well, I thought, despite his country club existence, Romney is not a man of the world, and it is a common error. But now I have to wonder whether he really intended to say he was going to visit the English, i.e. what his circles think of as the Anglo-Saxons.

John Swain of the Telegraph reports a discussion with “Romney advisers” about Romney’s visit to the United Kingdom.

These

“advisers told The Daily Telegraph that he would abandon Mr Obama’s “Left-wing” coolness towards London.”

Actually there is simply no coolness between the Obama administration and the Conservative government of David Cameron.

In fact, the two are so tight that the tabloid Daily Mail ran a headline, “Special relationship? That looks more like a bromance!” I think we actually would not want the two having more of a special relationship than that.

Because US high politics skews so far right, the British so-called ‘Conservatives’ are often to the left of the US Democratic Party. If there were tensions, it certainly would not be because Obama is to the left of Cameron on most issues! Cameron wanted, like Canada, to get out of Afghanistan much before the 2014 date proposed by Obama. Cameron is not happy about having to extradite British citizens to the US for things like copyright violations on the internet.

But simply inaccurately portraying the Obama-Cameron relationship and falsely asserting that Obama is a far leftist would only be par for the mendacious course of the GOP political campaign.

It was what came next that shocked the world on Tuesday. Swain writes:

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.

I really dislike Nazi references. They are for the most part a sign of sloppy thinking, and a form of banal hyperbole. But there just is no other way to characterize invoking the Anglo-Saxon race as a basis for a foreign policy relationship, and openly saying that those of a different race cannot understand the need for such ties. It is a Nazi sentiment.

If you would like some evidence for what I say, consider Adolf Hitler’s own point of view:

For a long time yet to come there will be only two Powers in Europe with which it may be possible for Germany to conclude an alliance. These Powers are Great Britain and Italy.”

Of the two possible allies, Hitler much preferred Britain because he considered it higher on his absurd and pernicious racial hierarchy. Indeed, Hitler held Mussolini a bit at arms length while hoping for a British change of heart, a hope only decisively dashed in September, 1939, when Britain declared war.

Hitler complained that colonialism was in danger of diluting Aryan European strength, weighing down the metropole powers. He contrasted this situation with that of the white United States, blessedly possessing its “own continent.” Indeed, it is, he argued (genocidal crackpot that he was), Britain’s special relationship with the Anglo-Saxon-dominated United states that kept it from being overwhelmed by its subhuman colonials:

“we we too easily forget the Anglo-Saxon world as such. The position of England, if only because of her linguistic and cultural bond with the American Union, can be compared to no other state in Europe.”

The argument of Romney’s advisers has exactly the same shape as Hitler’s, only it is being made from the American point of view rather than the European.

And, if we had a Jewish president at the moment, couldn’t the Romney camp make exactly the same argument, that the person didn’t appreciate the importance of the Anglo-Saxon heritage and ties? Is this really the discourse you want to engage in just before you arrive in Israel?

Romney has to find out who told Swain these things, and fire them. He has to publicly disavow these racist sentiments. They pose the danger for him of raising again the question of his own attitude to African-Americans as a young man in the 1970s before the Mormon church stopped discriminating against them on the grounds that they bore the mark of Cain.

Beyond the distasteful resemblances of this white supremacist discourse to the worst forms of rightwing extremism, the allegation astonishingly neglects to take account of who Barack Obama is.

Obama’s maternal grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, had English ancestry (among others), and some genealogists trace him back to the Earl of Norwich, who was a surety baron of the Magna Carta. Moreover, Stanley Dunham served in the US military in London and then on the continent during World War II, and was involved in saving Britain from Nazi Germany. You’d think that would be a basis for pretty warm feelings. And remember, it was Stanley Dunham who actually raised Barack Obama; he did not know his father.

In contrast, the Romney clan’s only practical relationship to Britain aside from ancestry was trying to convince Scots in Edinburgh in the 1920s to give up alcohol and caffeine and become Mormons. Aside from explosive mirth, I don’t know what other emotion that record might evoke among English Anglicans of the sort Romney appears to want to rub up against, but it certainly would not be warmth.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the whole idea of “Anglo-Saxon” England is a myth. Historical geneticist Bryan Sykes has found in hisSaxons, Vikings and Celts that the genetic mix in England is not for the most part different from that in Wales and Scotland and Ireland. There are, here and there, signs of Norse or German (Angles and Saxons) settlement, but they are minor and have to be looked for and are mainly in the y chromosome markers, i.e. on the male side of inheritance. The women are virtually all “Celts.”

But even “Celts” are a historical construct as a matter of “race.” In his Seven Daughters of Eve, Sykes had found that almost all Europeans are descended from only seven women who lived sometime in the past 45,000 years, one of them from the Middle East. These seven haplotypes or genetic patterns show up in all European populations, including the Basque (in the mitochondria, the power plant of the cell, which is passed on through females and does not change in each generation).

There simply are no distinctive “races” in Europe.

England had a Celtic myth of origins, centered on the fable of Arthur Pendragon, for centuries. It was only with the rise of Aryan racial theory in the mid-nineteenth-century that significant numbers of English authors started locating their national genealogy in the Anglo-Saxons. Most people have been embarrassed enough by the Nazi experience and the Holocaust to stop ordering the world in the terms of racial affinities and hierarchies.

So too must the Romney circle.

47 Responses

  1. Ann Romney’s horse is competing in the equestrian event so Mitt takes off to enjoy what his tax breaks have wrought. Show Jan Ebeling and Rafalca some love as she tries to beat Edward Gal, the openly gay champion from the Netherlands. This should be a classic election moment from Mitt and Ann.

  2. it is hard to deny the fact that English is basically Anglo-Saxon. It contains some Scandinavian forms as well but is overwhelmingly anglo-saxon. ["good butter and good cheese is good English and good Fries" Fresian is spoken in Holland.] The England of Chaucer was not self identified as Celtic. Shakespeare’s plays show us an English England with a complex complicated nuanced history integrating its celtic heritage but clearly English. As for Arthur. chivalry is about as foreign to celtic culture as it gets. So, although Romney is clearly completely tone deaf and color blind to his own racism, England is English

    • English as a language is Germanic in origin, though its vocabulary is heavily Romance. But peoples adopt and abandon languages over time (this also happened in Scotland and most of Ireland). The English are not on the whole genetically distinct from other inhabitants of the British isles, i.e. from what they think of as the Celts.

      • I’m not quite sure I understand the objection to Anglo-Saxon as a definition. *We* use it all the time over here, in every day parlance. There is no connection whatsoever to Nazi Germany, and in truth this is a first, reading here that the term is wrought with Nazi overtones.

        We are terribly proud of this part of our heritage, which has managed to produce some pretty astounding people and history. We aren’t about to let one man in a very short period in very recent history alter that fact in the least. It simply has never been an issue. Nor should it be now.

  3. In any event, I know enough about the British and how they look at Americans to say with certainty that they will not like Romney. They will see thru his cardboard-cutout phoniness, and I would bet there will be some sort of tabloid fun with him before he goes. The British like to “take the Mickey” out of overly serious people, and they will do that with him.

  4. Americans used to have a myth that someone could, after erring in life, ‘go straight’. Going straight was a common theme in fifty’s and sixty’s tv westerns, constantly echoing the redemption central to Christianity, repatriating US WWII troops from their portion of the barbaric excesses of that war, and extending into the justice system where via incarceration one could indeed completely pay one’s debt to society for a wrongdoing. Despite poll results where Americans in great numbers claim a strong Christian belief, social redemption has faded and been replaced by unending guilt of felons, and even those who tweet badly, such information saved forever in Rumsfeldian surveillence sweeps and residing on ones and zeros somewhere, waiting for a future use. Romney’s “England” worldview effectively brands nearly all earthly humans as ‘lesser’. However it is not Romney himself so much as the wide acceptance such views that is alarming. Go Right far enough and one cannot go straight.

    • Well, something had to replace white supremacy to keep working-class whites from turning on their bosses.

  5. If there’s anybody Mitt Romney needs to fire it’s Karl Rove. The Anglo-Saxon reference comes from the Rove playbook.

  6. Now Romney claims that he will repair the “Anglo Saxon” relationship with Great Britain as Obama does not comprehend this because his father was African…as Mormon, first a missionary ,then a Deacon no less, of the Mormon cult…just WHAT will he have in common with the Church of England? The Queen is the head of state AND the head of the Church of England and most of parliament including the Prime Minister belongs to this same Church, who like most Christians view Mormonism as a cult. How will these Mormon cult beliefs find ANY commonality with the “Anglo Saxon “Church of England leaders of Great Britain?

    What Does Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Really Believe?

    He believes that Jesus Christ is Satan’s brother.
    He believes that God lives near a planet called “Kolob.”
    He believes in baptizing dead people.
    He believes that Jesus is married to a goddess wife.
    He believes that The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
    He believes that it was impossible for Negroes to go to Heaven before 1978. They continue to believe all dark skinned people carry the “mark of Cain” and ONLY “stopped” discriminating because of the threat of multiple lawsuits …just like they forfeit their practise of multiple wives in order to join the union of the United States…that was a condition that they accepted.
    He believes that Jesus has children from his wife or wives.
    He believes that he is going to become a god.
    He believes he will own his own personal planet after he dies.
    He believes the real Christian God is not eternal but rather that He was once a man on some other planet besides Earth!
    He believes he needs to wear magical underwear created by Mormons and he is never to take it off unless he is bathing.
    He believes it is a sin to drink anything containing caffeine. And that even includes True American™ drinks like Coca-Cola!
    He believes children between the ages of 18-21 should wear name badges, ride bicycles and always smile.

    Oh yes he has so much more in common with the culturally diverse Great Britain and their Commonwealth than Obama does…lol…lol

    • Well in that case, perhaps they should stick to foreign policy or economics then. It would be a shame if Romney pulled out his copy of the Book of Mormon at an inopportune time, thinking he had a “Golden Contract,” only for his listeners to have been forearmed with the lyrics from that South Park episode, or the “Book of Mormon” musical.

  7. I don’t think Mitt Romney and his circle have the capacity to be embarrassed (other than if they dropped their crumpets during high tea), so I anticipate they will keep sending forth these rather unsubtle racial dog whistles.

  8. it does seem at times like australia, uk, and usa are in a white-people-against-the-world mindset …

    and btw, it is really time to stop giving attention to politicians .. that attention is their only currency, and it is time to cut them off.

      • A minority of whites voted for Obama. Millions of the remaining whites freaked out when they realized that there were enough non-white voters to defeat them. The rise of the Tea Party and “voter fraud” laws are about preventing that from ever happening again, a la 1876 and South Africa 1948. It is going to get harder and harder for whites in the future to avoid choosing a side, meaning both sides might get larger, but the movement to “purify” America is more united, confident, and aggressive.

        Which is why Reagan never would have said the crap that Romney and his people are saying.

    • it is really time to stop giving attention to politicians .. that attention is their only currency, and it is time to cut them off.

      I pretty sure you missed the point somewhere.

  9. Unfortunately, one has to invoke Godwin’s Law on this one. It’s too bad you couldn’t have written the article without the Nazi/Hitler comparison. There seem to be enough facts to let the racism accusation stand on its own merit.

    • Uh, the law says that when, in the course of ever more strident discourse, eventually one party or the other will be called a Nazi and compared to Hitler, and the party that invoked the name of Hitler loses and the game is over.

      There is, apparently, a need for an exception to this rule, and it goes like this:

      When discussing blatant racism, Anglo-Saxon purity, and feeble minded politicans, Godwin’s Law does not apply. That would be like claiming you can’t say “double fault” when playing tennis, love.

  10. I think Romney’s campaign is a clever ploy by the Bush clan, who are most anxious that Dubya should not go down in history as the USA’s worst president.

  11. What a great piece! Not only for shining a light on the mendacity and puncturing the pompous and casual racism of the Romney campaign but also for a whirlwind tour of the distribution of culture and genetics on the British Islands. I’ve been dabbling lately learning something about Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Age (Goldsworthy, Daileader), the High Medieval period (Armstrong) and the history of the English language (McCrum et al., Lerer) and this synthesizes all of it in about 800 words.

    • It shows how they think. And it shows that thy are unselfconscious about this way of thinking, to the point where they shocked a British journalist. It is not a matter of them trying to send a signal inside the US.

      • Indeed, Romney’s notion of understanding us as a people based on fallacious logic (Obama’s skin colour a division), is patently absurd.

        Under no circumstances can the Republican party members of Congress or ex-Governor(s) claim to be sympatico with us.

        Unless Romney wishes to align himself (back) with a national health care service, as we happily cling to with pride.

        • Word is, TCH, that Cameron is intentionally sabotaging your National Health service with new privatization mandates, and just by coincidence is getting big money from firms linked to US health service conglomerates.

          Be very, very afraid. Or take to the streets and fight.

  12. Sounds oddly like Blaine’s “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” comment…

  13. Juan:

    What I’m interested in, particularly, is the fact that Mittens is hosting a $25,000 to $50,000-a-plate dinner with UK bankers. I wonder if they are all American citizens because, is it not true that foreign nationals cannot contribute to American political campaigns? (Or is there a “corporate” exemption [they're people too, after all, my friend] to this rule?)

    AND, it goes without saying: BANKERS? Those at the heart of the LIBOR scandal? Are you SERIOUS?

  14. There is a context to this, but I don’t know if it applies specifically to the Mormon belief system. There’s a nasty Christian fascist rag called “The Philadelphia Trumpet”, which promotes Millenialism, hatred of Europe, etc. In the late ’90s I encountered a copy that promoted the idea of the US, UK and Israel as the “Nations of Israel”.

    I recognized immediately that this is an attempt by fundamentalists to write the USA into the Book of Revelation. It is based on the formerly anti-Semitic fantasy that the English are the Lost Tribe of Israel, inverted into a pro-Israel position by removing the part about modern Jews being false descendants of Judea. This Christian Identity dogma is associated with some very bad customers.

    Turns out the Trumpet is continually harping on this Nations of Israel meme, as part of the longstanding Christian Zionist movement. By writing the USA into a near-term Battle of Armageddon… well, that speaks for itself.

  15. After the War of 1812 , the business done between British merchants and US plantation owners was a huge boon to both. The agreement not to fight over the Canada border enabled both Britain and the US to expand westward. The Royal Navy helped keep the Russians from overrunning the Oregon territory. So , the shared history has some roots in the slave economy and imperialism. Black people, Native Americans, and Hispanics can’t really aprreciate this history the way Mitt does.

  16. Excellent article Mr. Cole. I have a question, you mentioned that you disliked the Nazi reference, as in your opinion there was “no other way to characterize invoking the Anglo-Saxon race as a basis for a foreign policy relationship,……” then you called it “a Nazi sentiment.” Is there any particular reason you called it “NAZI SENTIMENT” instead of “FASCIST SENTIMENT?”
    Furthermore you talked about Romney’s ATTITUDE toward “African-Americans as a young man in the 1970s before the Mormon church stopped discriminating against them on the grounds that they bore the mark of Cain.” Adding to that Romney’s more recent “attitude” at NAACP, plus his remark about “The White House doesn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”, clearing pointed to Obama’s African ancestry. Is there any particular reason we call it “ATTITUDE” and don’t use the word “RACIST”?
    I think it is a high time we call a spade a spade, and distant our dialogue from “political correctness”.

    • Answer: not all fascism is white supremacist. While Hitler was Catholic and clearly was influenced by the fascist movement that came to power in Italy before his own ascent, the Catholic brand of fascism, also called falangism, was primarily bigoted against Jews because of their religion, not their “race”. Catholicism will accept anyone who submits to it. However, I understand Mussolini’s movement was centered in northern Italy and did harbor bigotry towards southern Italians and Sicilians. But that is not the same thing as the reams of Nazi doctrine specifying race as the explanation of all the problems of Germany. Mussolini and Franco were hesitant to follow Hitler’s racial laws and deportations; it’s rumored that Franco was part-Jewish. Falangism is based more on rigidifying existing class hierarchy and reactionary authorities like the Church.

      Then there’s Japanese fascism, which turns all this on its head and scapegoats whites. What all fascists have in common is murderous anti-Marxism.

  17. Oh, London’s tabloid press is going to have a jolly good time with Romney. I wonder if he’ll be able to tell ridicule from romance.

  18. “Well, I thought, the other parts of the United Kingdom– Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland– are going to be miffed that he only came to see the English. People in the UK are still probably not entirely used to being called Britons, but most would prefer that to English where that is not what they are.”

    As an Englishman, I would rather disagree.

    We don’t refer to ourselves as Brits over here; that is left to others to do, labelling us because there is little distinction between an Englishman, Scot, Irishman or Welshman.

    We proudly call ourselves exactly what we are: English. Or Scot.

    So although we are all in shock and awe that America is actually putting forth Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate, we are not offended in the least that anyone visiting England would say precisely that. If Romney’s not travelling to Wales, Ireland or Scotland, he is – in fact – correct. And no offence taken by us, so a bit surprising it caused comment over there!

  19. What, and Obama’s mother’s family weren’t white Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Considering that he is distantly related to a truckload of famous white Americans, including both President Bushes and Darth, er, Dickhead Cheney, how exactly does this “inheritance” thing not apply to him?

  20. I understand that Obama Sr. was jailed by the British and never had anything good to say about them the rest of his life.

    • Yet Obama’s grandfather loyally served the British colonial authority in Kenya. Doesn’t this count for something with Mitt? And in response to Tehanu, maybe Mitt doesn’t think Obama’s mom counts as a significant influence because only fathers count.

  21. It’s not a big deal. But I know that my Scottish business partner looks on British somewhat the way Croatians used to think of “Yugoslavian”, as merely an adjective with which outsiders use fictive kinship to mask their hegemony.

    Yeah, it’s a bit arch. He’s that way. But I think it’s a genuine attitude among a fair number of Scots. They don’t want to be thought British.

  22. Persuading the Scots to give up alcohol and caffeine? Sounds like an audition to play Don Quixote in “Man of La Mancha!”

    • The Scots would be deeply offended to be referred to as English, and vice versa. Ditto the Welsh, and Irish. Furthermore, we have the Northern Irish (part of the UK), and Irish from the Republic of Ireland (Eire) which is not a part of the UK and is certainly part of the EU. Everyone makes a strident point to correct anyone of one of the other countries in the UK if they assume, for example, someone from N. Ireland is from Scotland; they go out of their way not to correct foreigners who make the same assumption – that would be impolite.

      The UK is a nation of nations, with four separate countries but all four, are British citizens (subjects). However, Great Britain only refers to three countries (England, Scotland and Wales) above – in part. The British *Isles*, however, does include Northern Ireland (but, not the Republic of Ireland/Eire of course). The Outer Hebrides and Shetland Islands of Scotland are *not* part of Great Britain, and in fact the OH doesn’t even consider itself part of Scotland much of the time (I am often there; it’s a sore point of discussion).

      England is the largest country in the UK and the centre of Parliament with London as the capital, although Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales have their own seats of government also.

      See, easy isn’t it?

      Point being: Not even we get this right, so I think it’s a bit much to castigate Romney for saying he’s visiting England.

      Is *is* misleading, in my humble opinion, for both Romney and Obama to gloss over the very obvious point of 50% of the president’s heritage. It was quite the sore point here in the UK, to feign being all-black or ‘the first black president’ as though he was attempting to hide half his ancestry. As the parent of children who are of mixed (another) race, I would be deeply offended if my half, or my spouse’s half, of DNA were avoided as though a political embarrassment.

      Political correctness or expediency seemingly knows no bounds, on either side.

  23. The Anglo-Saxon bit is going to hurt Romney further with Hispanics, as well. It just confirms their suspicions.

  24. If Romney is just visiting England then that explains that particular announcement concerning his visit. However, he may visit Wales or Scotland or both while he is here, whereupon he can say he has done that in each particular or just as accurately he can say that he has visited and talked with British people.

    What annoys many people on this island is when politicians domestic or foreign talk of ‘England’ when they mean Britain and as if Scotland and Wales do not really exist. E.g. “In 1940 England stood alone” or from the same period, “The Luftwaffe waged its air war on England”.

  25. Well, the Mittster has finally arrived here in Britain/England/the United Kingdom and, judging by the press coverage so far, it appears he only ever opens his mouth to change feet. His tactless comments on the preparations for the Olympics have upset everyone from our prime minister on down. I’m lovin’ it.

  26. Professor Cole, I greatly respect you and your blog, but I find your attitude towards race to be puzzling as well as self-defeating. You’re clearly an advocate for more racial tolerance, and in fact for dropping the whole idea of highly segmented race altogether. But saying things like “There simply are no distinctive ‘races’ in Europe” while citing human origins going back 45,000 years don’t strike me as constructive or very realistic. You’ve also made similar statements in the past.

    Races of people can have marked variations in appearance, cultural values (as a whole), and health. Some 90% of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant, something I actually discussed recently with an Asian American friend of mine. This isn’t some intrinsic biologic trait of the Asian ‘species’ of course, but due to a variety of historical factors it is a fact. Health professionals also don’t shy away from pointing that certain racial groups, like African Americans, are at higher or lower risks for certain diseases. And as you’re well aware, movements of various peoples throughout history have also played a huge role in the fate of nations and geographic regions (e.g. the massive presence of Turks in modern day Anatolia). Talking about these massive human movements must invariably involve discussion of race.

    In my view, reducing the debate about race to the point of nothingness does little to further any substantive discussion on the subject. It also strikes me as having little to no chance of convincing people who are racist of your viewpoint — they would, most likely, simply dismiss your arguments as being unrealistic and overly generalized.

    • All I can do is suggest you read more in where racial theory came from, what its premises were and are, and how contemporary genetics is disproving it. If you haven’t read Renan on race, it would be instructive. I suspect we differ because I am a historian and attentive to historical constructs.

      • Thanks for taking the time to respond Professor Cole. To clarify, I’m not saying that race isn’t a societal construct. In fact, I think it would be better if ‘race’ as a word wasn’t used at all, as something like ‘ethnicity’ does a much better job of talking about the differences that exist between races.

        But ethnic groups, like races in their contemporary usage, have distinguishing characteristics that can be intelligently talked about. Your argument strikes me as wanting to ignore the differences that do exist. For example, the area of Western Europe that was Gaul under the Roman Empire and what is today France shifted from being populated by primarily Celtic and Latin peoples to Germanic (i.e. the Franks). The legacy of that can still be seen today with the province of Bretagne or Brittany, which retains a degree of Celtic heritage unique from France as a whole. In this sense, speaking of the Celtic ‘race’ or Germanic ‘race’ can be useful, though as I said above I would rather use ‘ethnic group.’ Obviously this is a hazy area, and I’m not trying to echo the sentiment of Tacitus’ Germania, but I do think the differences and movements are worth talking about.

        Your theory that we differ due to your background as an historian couldn’t be further from the truth. I just finished my honors thesis on the East India Company, where I traced its evolution from a trading company to a colonial power.

        Unfortunately article comments don’t always offer the best format for this sort of thing, but hopefully my stance is clearer now.

        • Race was used differently in the 18th than in the 19th century. For the 18th century East India Co. officials, ‘race’ was for the most part an adaptation to a climate. In the course of the 19th century this idea of race was replaced with a rigid biological conception of ‘blood’ (often ‘pure blood’). It is the latter that still is influential in American usage.

          Bretons are not genetically distinctive from the rest of the French, hence not a separate race. Linguistic ‘ethnicity’ is also fluid. Most Beur, French of Algerian descent, don’t speak Arabic. The Mongols of central Afghanistan, the Hazaras, speak Persian.

          Deconstruct!

  27. I see what you’re saying, thank you for the follow up response. I am curious about something though. You write that “Bretons are not genetically distinctive from the rest of the French, hence not a separate race.” What, in your mind, qualifies as a separate race?

Comments are closed.