HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2020, 6:15 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Toronto's main Italian cultural and community hub is called the Columbus Centre. But yeah, Columbus is low profile in Canada nobody really sees him as a founding figure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 12:57 AM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Toronto's main Italian cultural and community hub is called the Columbus Centre. But yeah, Columbus is low profile in Canada nobody really sees him as a founding figure.
I wonder why Columbus became such a founding figure stateside for someone who didn't land in the continental US (yes, Puerto Rico but that's not typically what many people think of as the archetypal spot to situate a founding event for the US as a nation). I can see him being a bigger deal in Latin America but why in Anglo-America far to the north of where he landed and in duration never overlapping in time with either the colonies that became the US or the Revolution until many generations in a later century?

Enough such that Italian Americans (along with other Americans) started rallying around him as a foundational figure, but less so Italian Canadians who are also English (and French) speaking and have less of a connection to Latin America than possibly even Italian Americans (who for instance often lived with Puerto Ricans and other Latinos stateside in places like NYC). John Cabot could have also been a rallying figure with more a tie to Canada, having landed in eastern Canada, and not too far in time from Columbus, yet he hardly receives much attention in mass media/pop culture relative to Columbus. Neither do the Norse with Leif Erikson though he was earlier than Columbus and North America has plenty of descendants of Scandinavians with lots of pride in their heritage, just like Italians do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 4:21 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Pittsburgh - barely one tenth the overall size - has similar raw numbers of Italian Americans as L.A.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 12:46 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
I wonder why Columbus became such a founding figure stateside for someone who didn't land in the continental US (yes, Puerto Rico but that's not typically what many people think of as the archetypal spot to situate a founding event for the US as a nation). I can see him being a bigger deal in Latin America but why in Anglo-America far to the north of where he landed and in duration never overlapping in time with either the colonies that became the US or the Revolution until many generations in a later century?

Enough such that Italian Americans (along with other Americans) started rallying around him as a foundational figure, but less so Italian Canadians who are also English (and French) speaking and have less of a connection to Latin America than possibly even Italian Americans (who for instance often lived with Puerto Ricans and other Latinos stateside in places like NYC). John Cabot could have also been a rallying figure with more a tie to Canada, having landed in eastern Canada, and not too far in time from Columbus, yet he hardly receives much attention in mass media/pop culture relative to Columbus. Neither do the Norse with Leif Erikson though he was earlier than Columbus and North America has plenty of descendants of Scandinavians with lots of pride in their heritage, just like Italians do.
Maybe the US lacks of a very specific "beginning" in their colonial times, therefore using Columbus for that.

Brazil, for instance, has Pedro Álvares Cabral who landed in Bahia state coast in 1500 which marks the country beginning. While Americans celebrated the 200th anniversary in 1976, Brazilians preferred to focus on its 500th anniversary in 2000, relegating its independence as a mere regime change instead of the country's foundation.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 2:38 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Maybe the US lacks of a very specific "beginning" in their colonial times, therefore using Columbus for that.

Brazil, for instance, has Pedro Álvares Cabral who landed in Bahia state coast in 1500 which marks the country beginning. While Americans celebrated the 200th anniversary in 1976, Brazilians preferred to focus on its 500th anniversary in 2000, relegating its independence as a mere regime change instead of the country's foundation.
Nope, the story of the Pilgrims and the Mayflower landing at Plymouth Rock is one of the most popular American stories.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 3:02 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
I wonder why Columbus became such a founding figure stateside for someone who didn't land in the continental US (yes, Puerto Rico but that's not typically what many people think of as the archetypal spot to situate a founding event for the US as a nation). I can see him being a bigger deal in Latin America but why in Anglo-America far to the north of where he landed and in duration never overlapping in time with either the colonies that became the US or the Revolution until many generations in a later century?

Enough such that Italian Americans (along with other Americans) started rallying around him as a foundational figure, but less so Italian Canadians who are also English (and French) speaking and have less of a connection to Latin America than possibly even Italian Americans (who for instance often lived with Puerto Ricans and other Latinos stateside in places like NYC). John Cabot could have also been a rallying figure with more a tie to Canada, having landed in eastern Canada, and not too far in time from Columbus, yet he hardly receives much attention in mass media/pop culture relative to Columbus. Neither do the Norse with Leif Erikson though he was earlier than Columbus and North America has plenty of descendants of Scandinavians with lots of pride in their heritage, just like Italians do.
Columbus wasn't a prominent figure in U.S. history until the late 19th century. The story of his exploration was used as a way to assimilate Italian Americans into the American story, which is why it is unique to Italian Americans (vs Italian Canadians, or Italians in Brazil).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 3:06 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,965
The only explanation as to why the US places more emphasis on its beginning in 1776 rather than Plymouth Rock or Jamestown is because the vast majority of the country had no connection to colonial America.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 3:14 PM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
The only explanation as to why the US places more emphasis on its beginning in 1776 rather than Plymouth Rock or Jamestown is because the vast majority of the country had no connection to colonial America.
I think it is due to the very symbolic "fuck you" to the globally-dominant British Empire.

It's the perfect patriotic, cheer for the underdog, feel good story of the summer!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 3:24 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Columbus wasn't a prominent figure in U.S. history until the late 19th century. The story of his exploration was used as a way to assimilate Italian Americans into the American story, which is why it is unique to Italian Americans (vs Italian Canadians, or Italians in Brazil).
I get that history, but I was curious comparing with the other diasporas, as to why Columbus' (as opposed to other Italian figures in history that they could have rallied around for an assimilation story) story was chosen to show assimilation to a land/area Columbus never settled.

Why do you need to claim a figure from outside and pre-dating the US to claim you belong in the US?

Alternatively, one could have emphasized Italian-Americans' history within the US (for instance Italians did help later explore parts of the US east coast and fought in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War etc.) as opposed to a time period that is far in time and place from the US, like Columbus' exploration which would be more relevant to Latin American history than US American.

Italians assimilated all over the New World (Brazilians, Argentines, Canadians
etc. and farther afield like Australia) but for some reason Columbus was a bigger deal in one of the diasporas than the others.

For many groups people focus on their history within the US -- e.g. African American history starts with people who are black first on US shores, not in Portuguese territory or in the Caribbean. Japanese American history talks about say, Japanese immigration to California/Hawaii, and American internment, not Japanese in Brazil.

It would be odd to me, if say Asian Americans focused on Catarina de San Juan ("the China Poblana"), a 1600s Asian Mexican of Indian descent by way of the Phillipines, to show that Asian Americans belong in the US, instead of focusing on US soil.

Yet, for some reason, Italian Americans' belonging and assimilation relied on a non-American figure (as opposed to claiming Italian-American history starting with times when they were on US soil, like the Revolution, the Civil War etc.). I'm not judging but am curious why that is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 3:33 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
I think it is due to the very symbolic "fuck you" to the globally-dominant British Empire.

It's the perfect patriotic, cheer for the underdog, feel good story of the summer!
Well there are obvious reasons why a "revolutionary founding of a nation" is a good milestone for starting a nation's history.

If you start with colonial times as your founding, you get unclear who exactly is identifying as "an American" as a concept, and who's identifying as British, English, Loyalist, or colonist (and also other places now in the US were more tied to other colonial empires like New Netherland, New Spain, New France).

But if you start with the Revolution you have a "clean break" with when "American" as an identity starts in the US.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 3:35 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
Italians assimilated all over the New World (Brazilians, Argentines, Canadians
etc. and farther afield like Australia) but for some reason Columbus was a bigger deal in one of the diasporas than the others.
It shouldn't be considered weird. It would be weird if all people of the Italian diaspora coalesced around a single figure, while Italian Americans chose another. Obviously the figure that Italians in any given country chose as their unifier, or if they have one at all, was influenced by their local situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
For many groups people focus on their history within the US -- e.g. African American history starts with people who are black first on US shores, not in Portuguese territory or in the Caribbean. Japanese American history talks about say, Japanese immigration to California/Hawaii, and American internment, not Japanese in Brazil.
I don't think this is very analogous. The reason why African Americans focus on a history that started in U.S. territory is because they mostly have no idea what happened before that. And, Japanese Americans don't have much of a history in the U.S. before the 20th century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
It would be odd to me, if say Asian Americans focused on Catarina de San Juan ("the China Poblana"), a 1600s Asian Mexican of Indian descent by way of the Phillipines, to show that Asian Americans belong in the US, instead of focusing on US soil.

Yet, for some reason, Italian Americans' belonging and assimilation relied on a non-American figure (as opposed to claiming Italian-American history starting with times when they were on US soil, like the Revolution, the Civil War etc.). I'm not judging but am curious why that is.
All Asian Americans aren't Chinese, so that's not odd at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 3:36 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
I think it is due to the very symbolic "fuck you" to the globally-dominant British Empire.

It's the perfect patriotic, cheer for the underdog, feel good story of the summer!
I like your explanation better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 3:39 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
I get that history, but I was curious comparing with the other diasporas, as to why Columbus' (as opposed to other Italian figures in history that they could have rallied around for an assimilation story) story was chosen to show assimilation to a land/area Columbus never settled.

Why do you need to claim a figure from outside and pre-dating the US to claim you belong in the US?

Alternatively, one could have emphasized Italian-Americans' history within the US (for instance Italians did help later explore parts of the US east coast and fought in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War etc.) as opposed to a time period that is far in time and place from the US, like Columbus' exploration which would be more relevant to Latin American history than US American.

Italians assimilated all over the New World (Brazilians, Argentines, Canadians
etc. and farther afield like Australia) but for some reason Columbus was a bigger deal in one of the diasporas than the others.

For many groups people focus on their history within the US -- e.g. African American history starts with people who are black first on US shores, not in Portuguese territory or in the Caribbean. Japanese American history talks about say, Japanese immigration to California/Hawaii, and American internment, not Japanese in Brazil.

It would be odd to me, if say Asian Americans focused on Catarina de San Juan ("the China Poblana"), a 1600s Asian Mexican of Indian descent by way of the Phillipines, to show that Asian Americans belong in the US, instead of focusing on US soil.

Yet, for some reason, Italian Americans' belonging and assimilation relied on a non-American figure (as opposed to claiming Italian-American history starting with times when they were on US soil, like the Revolution, the Civil War etc.). I'm not judging but am curious why that is.
I haven't read it yet (just found it) but there is a chapter dedicated to the Columbus-as-discoverer story in a book called "The Myths That Made America" by a professor of American Studies in Germany: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1w...o_tab_contents

Looks like it can be read online and could have some interesting info.

EDIT: Just from the first few pages, it looks like the emphasis on Columbus as the true discoverer of America started during the revolutionary era, which pretty obviously would be propelled further by anti-British sentiment as pj3000 mentioned.

Quote:
Christopher Columbus, it seems, was the historical figure most useful in the “search for a usable past” (cf. Commager) which had 18th-century Americans – colonial subjects of the British Crown seeking independence – look for meaningful beginnings. It is in the last decades of the 18th century that the specifically North American myth of Columbus comes into existence and in a very brief time span is firmly consolidated and embroidered. In the process of transmission from Spanish-language to English-language sources, William Robertson’s 1778 History of America is highly influential – this book “was available to more American colonists than was any earlier source” (Bushman, America 40) and devoted hundreds of pages to Columbus, who, according to Robertson, in his endeavors combined “the superiority of genius” with “ardent enthusiasm” (History Vol. II 104). Robertson follows de las Casas in elevating Columbus and in crediting him with the ‘discovery’ of a new world. Overall, the author blames the Spanish colonizers (aside from Columbus) for their violent excesses in Latin America, but unsurprisingly exempts the British colonial power exercising control in North America from any criticism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 4:43 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
Yet, for some reason, Italian Americans' belonging and assimilation relied on a non-American figure (as opposed to claiming Italian-American history starting with times when they were on US soil, like the Revolution, the Civil War etc.). I'm not judging but am curious why that is.
I think you're not looking at the big picture, but then you're not from the US/weren't raised in the US.

I'm a Gen-Xer, and the way I've been taught the history of the US, looking back having grown up in California, has all been from one Anglo, east-coast-centric point of view. And the use of Columbus (who himself his origins are suspect) as a way to assimilate Italian-Americans is perfect. Older generations have always said that "Columbus discovered America," even though obviously there were people already living in the western hemisphere. And the fact that "America" for many is synonymous with "The US" plays into that. So, if a myth can be created that a dubiously so-called Italian person "discovered America," Italian-Americans can say that "their people" were practically there from the beginning.

Which is interesting to me too, because at the end of the 19th Century, was there even an Italian national identity? The modern united nation of Italy has only existed since 1861. I remember reading a long time ago that the actress Sophia Loren would refer to herself as being Neapolitan. Columbus was Genoese (supposedly).

It's interesting to me because Italians were the last large European group of people to immigrate to the US pre-Immigration Act of 1965. So for many Americans in the first half of the 20th Century, Italian food was the "let's have ethnic food tonight!" thing, kind of like how now, I'm sure people in most of the US say "Let's do Mexican tonight!" or "Let's have sushi!"

Garlic used to be considered an esoteric herb in the US, and a pejorative against Italian people in the late 19th-early 20th centuries was "garlic eater." It makes me wonder about the history of Gilroy, CA (south of San Jose), which bills itself as the "garlic capital of the world." My partner and I drove through there at the beginning of this year and we wondered if they had a big Italian-American population because of its garlic industsry.

I thought this was very interesting; you can see that Italians were the largest immigrant group to the US for most of the 20th Century, and then things start changing in the 1970s:

Video Link
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski

Last edited by sopas ej; Jul 30, 2020 at 5:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 8:17 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
It's interesting to me because Italians were the last large European group of people to immigrate to the US pre-Immigration Act of 1965. So for many Americans in the first half of the 20th Century, Italian food was the "let's have ethnic food tonight!" thing, kind of like how now, I'm sure people in most of the US say "Let's do Mexican tonight!" or "Let's have sushi!"
I don't think very many (non-Italian) Americans were eating Italian food in the first half of the 20th century.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 8:40 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,781
Yeah, even Italian-American food is fairly recent. The classic NY corner pizzerias didn't become ubiquitous till the early 1960's. Chicken parm and all those "Italian" classics weren't widespread until relatively recently. Most Americans ate boring WASP food (overcooked, mushy meats and veggies, whitebread) until the baby boomer years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 9:19 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,864
^^^^
Why do I doubt that? So that whole spaghetti-eating scene from Disney's "Lady and the Tramp" would've been lost to most Americans in 1955?

I don't know, but Little Joe's in Los Angeles opened in the 1920s and closed in the 1990s. There's also Miceli's in Hollywood, which bills itself as the oldest Italian restaurant in Hollywood, and they've been there since the 1940s---both existed in the first half of the 20th Century, and I don't doubt that other Italian restaurants existed in other American cities within the first half of the 20th Century, considering that Italians were the largest immigrant group to the US for most of the 20th Century.

Little Joe's, Los Angeles, 1939

Source: Los Angeles Public Library lapl.org

Over the years, the two upper floors of that building were removed, and what was left became this, before the building itself was completely demolished:

Source: oldlarestaurants.com

Here's a brief history of Little Joe's:
Little Joe’s

And this article from the LA Weekly:
THE STORY OF ITALIAN FOOD IN LOS ANGELES, FROM CHIANTI TO BURRATA
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 9:23 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Yeah, even Italian-American food is fairly recent. The classic NY corner pizzerias didn't become ubiquitous till the early 1960's. Chicken parm and all those "Italian" classics weren't widespread until relatively recently. Most Americans ate boring WASP food (overcooked, mushy meats and veggies, whitebread) until the baby boomer years.
It's recent as a mainstream American phenomenon but Italian food has been a staple within the Italian American community since the start. 100 years ago, people also didn't go out to eat very often; they cooked from home and Italians tended to be clustered in ethnic enclaves until the 50's when they started assimilating and scattering around.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 9:35 PM
wg_flamip wg_flamip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 835
Columbus' lasting legacy in the US might not have all that much to do with the man himself, aside from the fact that his name came to be associated with the female personification of the Americas in European art—Columbia.

The Renaissance was in full-swing when Europeans first "discovered" then established themselves in the Americas. Classical forms had come back into fashion as artists turned to the Greeks and Romans for inspiration. We see at that time the development of a recurring image of the four continents (Europe, Asia, Africa and America) as four women. In earlier European versions, Europe appears like a Roman goddess, while America is more fruits-and-feathers "Indian princess". Later, the personification of America would also come to look more like a Roman goddess, especially in works created in the New World.

The name Columbia to describe the New World is first used in Britain during the 18th Century as a way to strategically avoid breaking the law. At the time, it was illegal to put parliamentary proceedings into print, so the press was forced to use thinly veiled pseudonyms for places and people. Samuel Johnson, writing in The Gentlemen's Magazine at the time, is first credited for using Columbia to refer to Britain's New World colonies. The name later became widely used in poetry; unlike the word America, Columbia could be passed off as a three-syllable word when convenient to the poet. Given the prevalent use of personification as a literary device in the poetry of the time (esp. in regard to countries, continents, &c.), the classically inspired image of America-as-Roman-Goddess and the name Columbia coalesced into the figure of Columbia we know today (e.g., here).

Following the Revolution in the Thirteen Colonies, the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries looked to ancient Rome for inspiration, not only in their republican form of government but also in its symbols: the eagle, the fasces, Neoclassical Architecture, etc. The image of Columbia as goddess fit in perfectly (just as the similar image of Marianne caught on with their fellow revolutionaries in France shortly thereafter).

At the time, there was also an outbreak of cancel-the-king culture, and several places and institutions changed their names. For example, King's College in New York became Columbia College (today: Columbia University). Somewhat similarly, Georgetown, MD was subsumed into the new District of Columbia. Several other places throughout the new country were either renamed or newly founded as Columbia (e.g., Columbia, SC). The ship Columbia (later Columbia Rediviva), was first launched around this time; it would eventually give its name to the Columbia River and, by extension, British Columbia.

I don't know why Columbus himself became a popular figure in the US's history of itself, but I would imagine the ubiquity of his name facilitated it. I suspect his role may have been overinflated in order to minimize the role of the British monarchy in settling the country as was done with the Mayflower (albeit without the City-on-a-Hill ideological baggage). I would also suspect that he was used by Catholics in general to claim space in American history and not just by Italian-Americans in specific. The founder of the Knights of Columbus, Michael J. McGivney, was the son of Irish immigrants and educated in Quebec, for example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2020, 9:44 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
. 100 years ago, people also didn't go out to eat very often;
Actually, not entirely true.

Restaurants were a city thing; prior to the post-war years, most Americans were renters (home ownership really took off after WWII, fueled by the GI bill and the market created by developers that convinced Americans that the suburbs were the place to be). In the 19th Century/early 20th Century, people who moved to the cities for work were living in very basic studio rentals or crammed into tenements, where there were often no cooking facilities. So, many people got their meals at restaurants.

Here's an article I read recently:

Why Did So Many Restaurants Stay Open During the 1918 Pandemic?
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:19 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.