Unsettling Truths: The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery — Book Review

Spectrum Website
#21

Bob, I think it’s very naive position to take for a couple of reasons.

As @elmer_cupino pointed out, there’s a scope of injustice in the world going out in the very scope of the present day of your existence and economic activity, for example.

Could you answer a simple question - why would equivalent labor of any other person outside of the US be valued much less than your labor inside? Well, the answer is that’s because US has a dollar hegemony, and gets the first dibs on the currency it issues to its citizens via banking system, the value of this currency is pegged to be a certain standard, and hence mere access to borrowing that currency first gives people advantage and exchanging it for much cheaper labor and resources overseas.

It’s inherently unjust financial system in the way it is setup, and most of the people have no clue about its history and how it operates.

The US in some scope is a cluster&& of injustice, but in the other scope it is a bundle of ideals that were used to drive moral and technological development around the world, which elevated the standards of living for everyone.

If you find the contents of this book novel, then there’s a much broader range of books about economic policies of the US that you could consider in which agencies like CIA would engage in subverting democratic regimes, installing dictators, and then supplying economic aid in exchange for certain political terms that secured dollar hegemony and influence.

But, even beyond that, you have to consider that tribal past of American natives wasn’t very morally unambiguous either. There’s plenty of evidence of migratory conquest and tribal warfare and injustice.

Hence in modern setting, if you are attempting to trace back all of the complexity of injustice that you are trying to undo, you have to ask whether anything that you personally own has been obtained by means that potentially had some injustice in continuum? Clothes you wear are potentially made in East Asian’s sweatshops that use child labor and pay people almost nothing compared to how your labor is valued. The food you eat that is flown from around the US and the world is not any different.

You can’t remedy injustice in the way you suggest injustice to be remedied, because there’s such a complex web of entanglement in which the system itself that supports everyone would collapse if you begin doing this, and it would mean that everyone suffers. In fact, if you merely decide to get rid of all of the elicit drug trade in the US, the US economy would collapse in a span of weeks. Likewise, you have to consider the differential nature of human labor specialization to begin with. If you have an accounting desk job, and get to drive a car on a paved road… is that injustice? Your job is more comfortable, and other people sacrifice some of their health for your comfort, etc.

Hence, you can’t have a naive perspective on the world, and the complex structures that constitutes our system. Likewise, our perspective of justice is subjective in a sense that human system as a whole tends to resemble our biology in terms of specialized distribution of labor that we take on. Is it injustice that your mouth gets to taste, and your colon get to excrete, while your heart gets to pump without ever sitting down for a break?

There’s a broader scope of questions that you have to consider before running with whatever the latest fad in “restorative justice” would be.

At certain point in time, the only remedy we have, as I’ve said, to try and build something positive out of all of this mess, or try to learn and improve our system, or try not to repeat the same mistakes in case of the inevitable collapse, reset, and “invention” of the new one.

You have to also consider justice in a scope of certain limited constrains of generational life that plays by their own sets of agreements. So, knocking on someone’s door telling them that several generations ago the house they are occupying was stolen and sold to someone else… would be an injustice if you kick the current owner who paid for it with their efforts and labor. But, in many way, the way “restorative justice” is precisely that in a modern context, especially given that people migrate these days much more than they used to.

1 Like
#22

I meant, do you agree with the idea of taking over the property of the rich and famous in Hollywood Hills and giving it to the poor as a means of fighting poverty? I know that is a pretty personal question. That’s why I added “In case you want to reply.” :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
#23

I’d like to add a ;tldr to my answer in context of the question that Kate is asking above.

Who gets to define what justice is in a context of ever shifting moral landscapes and human cultural evolution? And what happens when your understanding of justice clashes with what one perceive justice should look like? Consider two perspectives on that justice when you read the OT passages where one side thinks they are justly taking what God given them, and the other may think that someone is stealing their land and property.

It’s not a very easy question to answer.

#24

The Bachelor’s and Veith’s assure us the beast system can’t possibly include an actual mark in order to buy or sell but is actually the day you worship on and you are deceived if you think otherwise… while that exact system is being built as they speak.:thinking:

1 Like
#25

In a word - NO. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the those decrying the lack of social justice, and the inequalities of the US social system.

This generation - the one looking for reparations - justice - equality has no clue what “socialism” is all about; and how human nature - the one that always manages to turn into selfish avarice - is not wiped away by political ideologies. It just shifts the avarice from people who have piled up riches, by whatever means, to people who have taken over power. There never can be “social justice”. One group or anther will lord it over the other, and it just goes around and around, each exacting justice of the other as the power shifts back and forth.

My grandfather left his home in Estonia to fight in the Russian revolution because of the poverty and injustice rampant in that part of the world at the time - the elite living in luxury while the masses starved. But, when those starving masses took over, they confiscated private property; got rid of “history” by discarding books, toppling statues - creating new “heroes” (sound familiar?); sent the existing establishment to Siberia; took over communication; established state media and placed a curtain made of “iron” around the whole thing - not to prevent people getting in (Sanders spent his honeymoon in the “Utopian” Socialist Republic); but to keep inhabitants from getting out. On the east-west border of Berlin, people jumped out of windows hoping to land on the western side. Many gave their lives for the quest of just being free - from “social equality”.

If all those “justice” seekers get into power the whole thing will be repeated. History is our best teacher. Tyranny, by whatever other name, runs the same course each time. Those kids who have been brain washed by their Socialist university classes can’t know what Socialism always ends up being - more injustice. Not until their comfort is disturbed will they understand what “equality” means in the hands of power-seeking humanity.

It’s ironic that the first thing the “new state” of CHAZ/CHOP did was to incase themselves behind a WALL. The same justice seekers who keep yelling about the southern border wall, find it necessary to erect a wall. The same with CNN when the fires threatened their kingdom - up went a wall. In the meantime, today’s power-seekers hide behind their gated communities/mansions while marching with placards for “justice”. Are they willing to give up their safety behind those gates, and discard their private security guards, while calling for the annihilation of police departments. - Give up their mansions in the hills to make room for the needy? Not that they should. Just let their rhetoric match their life style.

Lenin drove around in his Roll Royce as he directed the revolution.

You asked…

1 Like
#26

Arkdrey,

Bob, I think it’s very naive position to take for a couple of reasons.

Thank you for taking the time and patience to answer my simple questions. Have you read the book.?

As @elmer_cupino pointed out, there’s a scope of injustice in the world going out in the very scope of the present day of your existence and economic activity, for example.

Certainly correct, but did world injustice prevent our civil war? Obviously there were people then who believed it was right to make a correction. The Clinton administration bombed Kosovo to smithereens because of injustice, how is this different.

Could you answer a simple question - why would equivalent labor of any other person outside of the US be valued much less than your labor inside? Well, the answer is that’s because US has a dollar hegemony, and gets the first dibs on the currency it issues to its citizens via banking system, the value of this currency is pegged to be a certain standard, and hence mere access to borrowing that currency first gives people advantage and exchanging it for much cheaper labor and resources overseas.

The problems with our capitalistic system is another whole issue- maybe later.

It’s inherently unjust financial system in the way it is setup, and most of the people have no clue about its history and how it operates.

The US in some scope is a cluster& & of injustice, but in the other scope it is a bundle of ideals that were used to drive moral and technological development around the world, which elevated the standards of living for everyone.

So is this a set of scales where the good outweighs the bad?

If you find the contents of this book novel, then there’s a much broader range of books about economic policies of the US that you could consider in which agencies like CIA would engage in subverting democratic regimes, installing dictators, and then supplying economic aid in exchange for certain political terms that secured dollar hegemony and influence.

I find nothing novel about any of this except the knowledge of the Discovery Doctrine. I am painfully aware of the long history of our great nation meddling in the affairs of “our little brown brother“ around the world.

But, even beyond that, you have to consider that tribal past of American natives wasn’t very morally unambiguous either. There’s plenty of evidence of migratory conquest and tribal warfare and injustice.

You are correct that they treated each other as bad or worse than our fathers treated them. Does that give us the right to interfere and forcibly “christianize” them? Was it right for us to intervene and invade Iraq because Hussein was “evil”? Or was it really about WMD?

Hence in modern setting, if you are attempting to trace back all of the complexity of injustice that you are trying to undo, you have to ask whether anything that you personally own has been obtained by means that potentially had some injustice in continuum? Clothes you wear are potentially made in East Asian’s sweatshops that use child labor and pay people almost nothing compared to how your labor is valued. The food you eat that is flown from around the US and the world is not any different.

Not advocating that at all. Just asking what can we do about the problem right in front of us. I agree the problems are complex. Maybe we need sincere people of high intellect to commit to doing something about it.

You can’t remedy injustice in the way you suggest injustice to be remedied, because there’s such a complex web of entanglement in which the system itself that supports everyone would collapse if you begin doing this, and it would mean that everyone suffers. In fact, if you merely decide to get rid of all of the elicit drug trade in the US, the US economy would collapse in a span of weeks. Likewise, you have to consider the differential nature of human labor specialization to begin with. If you have an accounting desk job, and get to drive a car on a paved road… is that injustice? Your job is more comfortable, and other people sacrifice some of their health for your comfort, etc.

What suggestions have I made? I recall asking questions.

Hence, you can’t have a naive perspective on the world, and the complex structures that constitutes our system. Likewise, our perspective of justice is subjective in a sense that human system as a whole tends to resemble our biology in terms of specialized distribution of labor that we take on. Is it injustice that your mouth gets to taste, and your colon get to excrete, while your heart gets to pump without ever sitting down for a break?

Now is that really a fair statement? It seems so easy for us intellectual giants to question the intellect of people who ask simple questions. It must be the nature/nurture thing again.

There’s a broader scope of questions that you have to consider before running with whatever the latest fad in “restorative justice” would be.

Maybe you should just read the book so we can have a fair discussion. Have you, by the way, spent time on these reservations? Do you know what the author, Mr. Charles, is saying?

At certain point in time, the only remedy we have, as I’ve said, to try and build something positive out of all of this mess, or try to learn and improve our system, or try not to repeat the same mistakes in case of the inevitable collapse, reset, and “invention” of the new one.

I totally agree. That is why the book should be read by those of us that care. Mr. Charles makes great points. He is backed up by the experience of living it. He is also standing up to the plate and making a run for the presidency. Read the book. We need people of great intelligence to refute him.

Disclaimer: I have no personal knowledge or acquaintance to Mark Charles. I only heard about he and his book a week ago from this forum.

You have to also consider justice in a scope of certain limited constrains of generational life that plays by their own sets of agreements. So, knocking on someone’s door telling them that several generations ago the house they are occupying was stolen and sold to someone else… would be an injustice if you kick the current owner who paid for it with their efforts and labor. But, in many way, the way “restorative justice” is precisely that in a modern context, especially given that people migrate these days much more than they used to

Agreed. There are no simple answers. Please do yourself a huge favor and read the book.

Thank you again for your patience and time in communicating here.

1 Like
#27

Thank you so much for your complex and personal reply to my nosey question. Much of what you wrote sounds pretty familiar to me. (However, some of my conclusions differ.)

One additional thought, the possible misuse of good intentions and people’s tendency for power strife should not prevent us from seeking social justice and other good things. The question is how. And it’s a very personal question that has to take one’s personal history into account amongst others. Your how doesn’t necessarily have to be my how, and vice versa.

Again, I appreciate your reply very much.

1 Like
#28

Excellent post. I do not wholeheartedly agree. But you should be thanked just the same.
One consistent pattern I find in the writings of people on the right is the tendency to make issues “either/or” and “black/white”.
When discussing social issues and even capitalism, the usual arguments are to bring up the evils Stalin and Eastern European communism. It becomes an either this or that. A flight to the extreme edges.
This was especially true in the late 60’s, early 70’s and again after 911. I remember anyone questioning the system was told, “America, love it or leave it”. “If you don’t like it move to Russia”.
The reason we were told we were there (in Vietnam) was because of “communism”. 90% of Americans did not understand what that meant. All the Vietnamese wanted was an end to colonialism. And freedom loving Americans became deaf to their cries.
CNN doesn’t always get it right. And when that happens they take valuable air time to apologize/correct. It has been my experience that there are those who are very quick to criticize a free press when they disagree with the reporting.
Just sayin.

1 Like
#30

Bob, yes I have read the book and I disagree with its central premise that the assumption of white supremacy takes its roots from the Doctrine of Discovery.

The concept of “whiteness” did not exist in that era, since much of the divisions went along the lines of allegiances to ethnic lines. That’s something authors intentionally overlook IMO.

So, someone like Juan Valiente, or Sebastian Toral using Doctrine of Discovery as a pretext of “white supremacy” would be an absurd oxymoron. In fact, you will not even find a reference to “white people” and “black people” in historical literature, since it was a manufactured divide that emerged much later.

I think that a more adequate lens to look at Colonial era is that of the lens of Western ideological, religious, and political supremacy. To view it through the lens of “white supremacy” is a very novel recasting of our collective history in the new identitarial narrative that’s very popular in Academia today. And it’s a false narrative.

In fact, if you begin with a premise structured by that narrative along the concept of skin color, then you will have an extremely distorted view of history… and especially the History of the Western Christianity.

I think history of white and black identity is demonstrably different and separate from the Doctrine of Discovery. To lump these two together is not a viable methodological approach to interpreting causal historical factors.

The authors don’t make any viable attempts to demonstrate these causal relationships and establish that as a concept derived from that doctrine. They simply assume that it’s the case.

In modern academia the concept of “whiteness” becomes a tool for both reductionist and revisionist history, but it suffers from severe methodological and conceptual flaws.

#31

Wow, thank you, dear Anne, for this personal and profound post.

“Who has the answer?” Several years ago, I thought I have the answers to these questions. Not anymore. I have more questions than answers. More emotions than answers. I realized I am part of an ideology somehow (well, that realization was a big step), but at the same time, I am not willing to give it up completely. Well, anyways, I hear you. I do. Thank you.

3 Likes
#32

Americans, on the whole, are pretty naive. Naive in a self-absorbing way, like kids. If in a foreign country and not understood, just speak a little louder. Not your fault. America (continent) is relatively young; and unless you, yourself have actually immigrated here, there is little in-depth understanding of the rest of the world. Americans also take a lot for granted, like kids in a well-to-do family. But that has a kind of charm to it as well. The rest of the world is less grand - somehow smaller (houses and apartments) - more simple.

As a result, Americans treat other countries with American presumptions and expectations - “of course everybody wants to be free”, when everybody just wants their basic needs met. Some countries that have been “freed” are not so happy with their freedom. Long standing cultures under someone else’s thumb, don’t know what to do with “freedom”. We don’t understand that. And so we push our way around the globe, offering freedom, but some don’t want it. Some of us assume everybody in the US want freedom, of course,- but some would rather have security.

On the whole, the conservatives believe everybody wants freedom - a good job - opportunity to grow. The liberals would like freedom all right, but up to a point. They would rather have government control in their lives where they don’t have to provide for themselves. And the liberal leaders are happy to oblige - the rich should be made to pay for less fortunate - who have been made to believe it’s better to be taken care of, than provided with self-realization. So, Pellosie offering more government aid, because some folk have a higher income with the government handouts than what they made working. That equal votes.

Psst: There is no “free press.” Just sayin.

4 Likes
#33

Thanks for your reply.
The first part of what you wrote I can agree with. Iraq in 2003 is an example.
As one born here I can see that we are often naive to the world, we have a superiority complex, and our idealism wants to fix what’s seen as wrong with it. And we have accumulated great wealth much of which we don’t deserve, yet we think we do. Many ways we’re self-deceived.

And people who immigrate from older nations make some assumptions. They see things from that POV. Doesn’t make it right. I grew up in the inter mountain west, a simple farm boy. I have witnessed multiple migrations of people from the East into our area over the years. Good people for the most part, just wanting to escape something bad back east. Like anyone else, they came as they were. They brought with them their hopes and dreams but also their prejudices, attitudes, and mis-understandings.

I have paid my dues my entire life, nothing was ever handed to me, and don’t care for any suggestions that it was, but there are many who didn’t get the chances I was given.
I agree, there should be no free lunches. But the playing field could be leveled a bit.
As for reparations, I don’t know the answers. Cash handouts seldom if ever work. Just look at the lottery system. We should all pay our way, but that assumes a level playing field. Which in fact it’s not.
A Navajo child born on the Rez does not have the same opportunities of a Caucasian child born just across the line. A black child born in the Deep South doesn’t have the same opportunities of a white born just across the tracks.
Is life fair? No
But if we’re looking to make a “more perfect union”, we have to make that field as level as possible.

1 Like
#34

I glad you read the book.
But I wonder if Africans weren’t black, would they have still been enslaved, or if Native Americans were white would they have been conquered like they were? Hard to say. I think it certainly made it easier. Then there’s the fact of a more advanced people exploiting another still locked in the Stone Age.
Prejudice is not dependent upon pigments. Superiority comes in many subtil forms.
I can’t argue with you about whether or not there were written documentation having to do with skin color.
The fact still remains that the discovery doctrine was seen as giving papal permission to the atrocities that occurred.
And our nation used that same “handy” rationalization to take land that did not belong to us. This land was not unoccupied when Europeans came here. The population was drastically reduced by pandemics, but it was not Un-occupied.
So far to date over 10 main line Christian denominations have repudiated the doctrine.
Where is that discussion in SDA circles?

2 Likes
#35

Thank you. Totally agree. But it’s the HOW that matters. While a handout looks like help, it’s actually saying, “I have to help you because you can’t do it yourself.” That fosters a lack of self-respect and takes away motivation. Dependency is no better than slavery.

1 Like
#36

I agree.
But to characterize the left as a bunch of naive scaredypusses who just want to give it all away is just wrong.
One thing the right is very good at is branding their opponents as unjustly conspiring to screw the rich.
That is beyond simplistic.
I didn’t get the same opportunities as any of the billionaires. Some have sensed a burden to “repay” society and I think that is good because they recognize the blessings they have.
But others have not. Yet they used the same infrastructure, the same highways, water systems, all socially funded by all. In many cases they had the same educational background.
Not everyone gets the same opportunities. It is very disheartening to see some do everything they can to prevent leveling that field.
As Christians, where do we think those abilities come from?

2 Likes
#37

Have you not heard Sanders, Warren, the rest who dropped out - all about taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have nots” - free everything. Here’s a thought - do away with income tax and tax everything we buy, over a specific price tag. This way bread and milk is tax free; and yachts and planes carry the load.

3 Likes
#38

In American cultural mythos there’s a very atomistic view of history that at first whitewashed its own history with certain Washington “cherry tree” founding fathers mythology and idealism. And on the other end, there an opposite swing to undo that mythology by deconstructing that history by casting into present-day understanding of morality that only allows the room for “black and white” discussion.

And in doing so, there’s a tendency to abstract all of what was going on from the rest of the history as though it wasn’t something that existed prior in some shape and form, and only became more efficient as it followed a rather typical trajectory of conquering, exploitation, and cultural integration with certain trailing class of integrated people that will be left behind. Although at times the development direction ends up wiping out and leveling the playing field where entire countries get swallowed up and exploited by other.

I often demonstrate white slavery in Russian history in which “holop” (a deragatory slur used for Ukrainians to this day ) was the equivalent of the n-word slave. And, the tangent of history merely precedes American slavery by almost a millennium.

And the irony of this particular book is oblivious to that particular parallel history.

So, there are viable parallels. Slaves could be treated by their slave masters in a similar manner as American black slaves were. They could be beaten, killed, sold, bred, raped, you name it. St. Petersburg, for example is known as “city built on bones”, with estimated 30,000 of forced slave labor was pushed to their deaths during the construction in early 1700s.

That system progressively loosened up, since masters were responsible for their slaves, and it became much easier just to give people land, and take some or most of their produce. But it was perpetuated in some form all until 1869, and even then it was largely a political move to shift exploitation from agrarian to various civil or industrial setting.

In some etymological estimates, the word Slave itself takes origins from “Slav”, although there’s disagreement and debate, since Slav takes origins from Slovo. But, the fact remains, Eastern Europe was the slavery export land historically. And the irony is that to this very day Eastern Europeans are hired to work as house servants in Europe, and that becomes a huge chunk of the economies like Ukraine.

Hence, whenever American left tend to describe some global system of white supremacy, they conveniently ignore the rest of the world that had to deal with similar history… of both colonization driven via religious narratives, and established and perpetuated system of slavery which exploited marginalized populations.

American “____ studies” depts. tend to be very inwardly oriented, and chunk up history along the lines of black exploitation by white people. And in this particular case tend to project it on the rest of the world.

Again, you seem to be approaching this with a typical historical atomism which tends to exist in American liberal academia that picks causes to reformulate the history around.

Any national history is a history replete with atrocities, conquest, and regime changes. There are plenty of internally-exploited classes, some of which are perpetuated into caste systems. There are plenty of egrigious murders and genocides.

European conquest is merely a continuum of that along the historical trajectory that looks very similar. There are plenty historical trajectories of “could have been”, where history could be different, yet very similar.

The naive approach to this subject is precisely in the idea that removing few variables from history results in Utopia , as opposed to the power vaccuum that results from the next in line power that immediately fills it.

What we have today, no matter how flawed… is the best we’ve ever managed to build a human project. So dismantling the American experiment of today because we haven’t achieved egalitarian perfection… will ironically and arguably result in the opposite. Large historical swings to the left are almost always totalitarian in their ideological approach.

What does that that repudiation mean in functional reality of these churches other than , I would suspect, surrendering to the ideological posturing that swings way left?

3 Likes
#39

Sirje,
“Have you not heard Sanders, Warren, the rest who dropped out - all about taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have nots” - free everything. Here’s a thought - do away with income tax and tax everything we buy, over a specific price tag. This way bread and milk is tax free; and yachts and planes carry the load”

Your reply is not without merit. And that is because those you mentioned failed to explain their values in a way that deep conservatives would feel comfort with. Fact Is the wealthy will never feel comfortable with redistribution of wealth. And in many ways those are legitimate feelings.

But they are feelings.

The conversation has been about the huge disparity of resources between the haves and have nots. Look at income inequality. The infamous 1% ownership of massive wealth while many go hungry. Or multinational CEO”s incomes verses that of the working class. Yes, it’s what the market will bear, is that how it’s worded?

Do we need to examine how that was accumulated in the first place? Or all the methods used to keep secure that wealth? It is a well established fact that the abusers, the powerful, the controllers will forever deny anything wrong.

The disappointing fact to me is the millions of working class people who enable them to continue to peddle that nonsense.

Not long ago we agreed that the field needs leveled. Access to opportunity is not distributed equally. There are people who have taken unfair advantage of their opportunities then condemn others who just want the same thing. Opportunity.

Equal access to education is equal access to opportunity. Equal access to good health is equal access to opportunity. It is leveling the field. It is not a free lunch.

And look just this week who is again/still trying to take away healthcare from unemployed workers in a pandemic.

#40

Wow some great, insightful education in this (and most) thread Sage I mean Sirje :+1:

1 Like
#43

I agree that there tends to be a frequency bias when it comes to noticing certain patters, but it’s not without precedents… on either side of people noticing these patterns. There has been radicalization of politics in general that runs along the lines of using extreme elements of the opposition such as extreme elements of Tea Party and Alt-right who are openly for white natiinalism, or BLM ANTIFA , and extreme activism from various orgs in the left Dave Chappelle titled as “the letter people”.

Likewise, certain factions of American Academia who raised the generation of future SJW warriors are quite openly Marxist.

So, it’s not just shadows on the wall… arguably on the either side of this.

I would say that in certain layers of the right, we are getting pretty close to that extreme as a call to balance some subversive efforts of totalitarian left which is in almost total control over media and tech narrative in this nation, with few minor exceptions.

In short, Russian Oligarchy lacks the political and legal checks and balances, and contractual agreement nature of the deals, that would make it an impossible to survive in the US in a state it exists in Russia.

If you’ve seen The Godfather movies, that’s essentially what Russian Oligarchy is, only with the State largely out of the way .

What do you mean by “our”? You mean European Collonialism? How many of the “white people” I the US do you estimate to be descendents of the European nations that engaged in Colonian conquest, given that immigrant composition of the US is very diverse?

Likewise, what exactly were they exporting given that existing nations arguably went very similar violent development of culture-driven and consolidating conquest or perpetual nomadic raiders?

Perhaps you may be aware that the rest of the world moved past slavery without civil wars. It simply became less efficient.

I would argue that “moral progress” tends to trail cultural and economic develooments, and not the other way around.

For example, Feminism in a state emerged in sexual revolution of 60s is arguably a structured policy push and cultural ideals that necessitated women to remain in the workforce after WWII in order to secure economic growth, and push adequate financing and structure of the public education system. Today, there’s a resurgence of that because it’s helpful in driving partisan politics.

There are many crossroads where policy conveniently meets social developments, and what we see now isn’t different.

Yes :). It’s that obvious, eh?

1 Like