Hegemony
By Oscar Medina
Although Antonio Gramsci did not write about race, racism, or the colonial experience, his socio-political work is recognized throughout many academic disciplines such as cultural studies, ethnic studies, sociology, and among other fields of studies (Hall 1996). Many praise his thought for its refusal to leave the terrain of concrete historical, social and cultural realities for abstraction, economism and reductionist theoretical models (Forgacs 2000, Hall) that tend to simplify structures of social formation rather than highlight the structural complexity. Gramsci works from a Marxist terrain, however, his critical lens is in the superstructure, where institutions and culture function to uphold the structure. This paper will discuss briefly Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and how his concept(s) help explain the durability of “advanced” capitalist societies. Also, in this paper I will draw from Gramsci concept(s) of hegemony to discuss the culture and practice of white supremacy in education, particularly on the University of California Berkeley campus.
What is Hegemony?
In advanced capitalist societies, the state rules through a combination of coercion and consent. According to Gramsci the state is composed of a political society and civil society (PN 262). By political society he refers to political institutions and legal constitutional control such as schools, courts, and police authorities. By civil society he refers to private institutions and economic systems. Gramsci suggests that the two spheres (political and civil society) are what make the state overlap, making their division purely conceptual. In advanced democratic capitalist societies, for example, business owners (the bourgeoisie) have political power in public spheres because they have the power to influence electoral outcomes. For example, a state retrofit or construction project requires a construction company to supply material and labor. As “public servants,” politicians will seek out a development company that has the potential to provide financial assistance in upcoming elections – thus giving political power to the bourgeoisie economic and political interest. Common scenarios of this sort, I believe make Gramsci define the composition of the state as political society and civil society, two overlapping complex forces that converge to pave the ground of hegemony.
Hegemony is best described as a formula of rule through force and consent primarily through ideology. Ideology is understood in terms of ideas, meanings and practices that purport to be universal truths to sustain powerful social groups. Gramsci himself lays out the formula in the following way,
The maximum of legislative capacity can be inferred when a perfect formula of directives is matched by a perfect arrangement of the organisms of execution and verification, and by a perfect preparation of the ‘spontaneous’ consent of the masses who must ‘live’ those directives, modifying their own habits, their own will, their own convictions conform with those directives and with the objectives they propose to achieve. (Gramsci, Prison Notebooks p.266)
In short, laws control the lives of the masses and the masses obey to the laws that socially control their decisions. For example, if one violates the law, one is forced to settle with the courts and by coerced consent; one has to agree with the courts decision albeit guilty or not guilty. Gramsci states “hegemony [is] protected by the armour of coercion”(PN 263). In other words the masses do not randomly obey authority but obey authority because of a set of organizing and “legitimized” rules and practices are in place. Hegemony, in this case, is the process of making, maintaining and reproducing authoritative sets of meaning and practices by force and consent. Hegemony works toward the advantage of the ruling and dominant social group; in the case of the U.S., I would say it works with capitalist intent as its primary motivation.
Hegemony is creating and maintaining a common conception of the world by feeding popular ideologies to the masses.
…. the dominant group is coordinated concretely with the general interests of the subordinate groups and the life of the State is conceived of as a continuous process of formation and superseding of unstable equilibria (on the juridical plane) between the interest of the fundamental group and those of the subordinate groups-equilibria in which the interests of the dominate group prevail, but only up to a certain point, i.e. stopping short of narrowly corporate economic interest. (PN182)
For example, neo-liberal economic policies like NAFTA, are sold to the masses with fixed notions of profit and economic development; although, only to benefit the dominant group and further deprive the subordinate groups. The idea of hegemony explains how power of ascendant social groups is maintained. In my view hegemony is basically the terrain we are forced to walk on. Existing laws (policies) imposed by the state and ideologies manifested through censored media, are just two examples of how institutions force our consent and shape the terrain we walk on.
How Hegemony Operates
In advanced capitalist societies, ideology is the fuel of hegemony.
Ideas and opinions are not spontaneously ‘born’ in each individual brain: they have had a centre of formation, of irradiation, of dissemination, of persuasion-a group of me, or a single individual even, which has developed them and presented them in the political form of current reality. (PN 192)
Hegemony operates through the consent and coercion of the masses under the dominant group’s ideological parameters (rules, practices and culture). Louis Althusser (1971), in Ideology and the State views the school as the dominant ideological state apparatus because schools inculcate the ideology of the state, a sense of nationalist and liberalist ideas. Nonetheless, the school is the reproductive site of capitalist subjects, where the creation of workers, mangers and leaders are fostered. Schools enable these practices through a set of ideologies established by the ruling class. Hegemony occurs by conditioning students to practice these sets of ideologies, such as language and culture. It is through a combination of consent and coercion that enables ideologies to sustain and reproduce. Elementary schools in the U.S., for example force students every morning to pledge their allegiance to the U.S. flag. Not only are schools inculcating nationalism but they are exercising a set of ideological notions, “one nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all” which paves the hegemonic ground we walk on.
Gramsci’s Elements of Revolutionary Change
According to Gramsci, in order for revolutionary change to occur there must a be a collective political consciousness founded at the economic corporate level . First, workers must identify a struggle; “a tradesman must feel obliged to stand by another tradesman” in unity to identify a common struggle. Second, when the solidarity of interest among all the members of the social class (in this case the working-class) is reached to reform the existing fundamental structures, (thirdly) their corporate interest must transcend the corporate limits of the economic class (those in power) to garner forward the interest of the subordinate groups. According to Gramsci these are the three stages for revolutionary change. For example in the 1960, the Chicano civil rights movement formed through identifying their collective struggle (building alliances) to overcome the dominated landscape of white supremacy to move forward their own perspective on the cultural and political history of the southwest. The three stages for revolutionary change create an agenda for the subordinate group. According to Gramsci, the subordinate group must create a counter-hegemonic force through a “war of position” and “a philosophy of praxis.”
Gramsci states that “a theory is ‘revolutionary’ precisely to the extent that it is an element of conscious separation and distinction into two camps and is a peak inaccessible to the enemy camp” (p462). This philosophy of praxis is, for example, the establishment of ethnic studies on university campuses, a counter-hegemonic movement in opposition to the glorification of white studies in academia. Ward Churchill (1995) writes on whites studies and U.S. university system. Churchill states that a university education “...serves to under pin the hegemony of white supremacy in its other, more literal manifestations: economic, political, military and so on.” In this case, ethnic studies departments across university campuses are a counter-hegemonic force that attempt to penetrate dominant white academia for a more inclusive curriculum, if not establish new intellectual circles of thought.
The establishment of ethnic studies is a revolutionary change in academia, a change that was fought using the tactics of a “war of position,” rather than “war of maneuver.” Through Gramsci lens, I argue that the struggle to establish ethnic studies on university campuses, came through a ‘war of position,’ a political protracted struggle rather than a ‘war of manoeuvre,’ an upfront physical confrontational struggle (Hall, PN 233). Gramsci believed that a counter-hegemonic struggle must seek to gain ascendancy within civil society before any attempt is made on state power.
Scrutinizing the University of California Berkeley Using Gramsci’s Concepts
The University of California Berkeley (UCB) is a colonial site where we can apply some of Gramsci concepts of hegemony. UCB was founded in 1868, shortly after the U.S. – Mexican war (1846-1848). After the war, Mexico lost half of its territory to the U.S. The university today lies on a terrain that was once Mexican soil; yet nowhere on the campus is there a monument recognizing this historical fact. Additionally, not a single place on campus recognizes the extinct Ohlone indigenous peoples that occupied the San Francisco bay area before colonial settlers invaded the territory. The only place on campus that recognizes indigenous life is in Krober hall where white Anthropology department displays Ohlone artifacts on walls of the museum of anthropology for the pleasure of visiting tourist to consume. Krober hall is named after Alfred Louis Krober, a white protestant male anthropologist who was a professor at UC Berkeley from 1901-1946 and is most rewarded for studying the Indians of California . His research focused on studying the last Yahi Indian named Ishi. Ishi resided five years at the UCB’s Anthropology museum where he developed tuberculosis and died in 1916.
It is through hegemony that white settlers are able to colonize the Indian and justify their so-called “savagery” and then display the Indian pictures, language and culture. The university legitimizes this as historical preservation of the Indian. Gramsci would call it a domination by the ruling group over the Indian. Gramsci concept of hegemony helps us understand how UCB can legitimize their occupation, and colonization of indigenous people.
Pushing more on the concept of white supremacy, universities have a critical role to play for the state, which is to uphold and sustain the legitimacy of the state. The state holds its universities accountable to continue producing the knowledge that will legitimize the state’s operation. It is through cultural practices of white supremacy, that whiteness prevails to be the functioning dominant language and culture of the state. Whiteness, then, is the dominant culture on most university campuses throughout the nation (except for historically black colleges in the South) making it an explicit uncomfortable terrain for racial and ethnic minorities. W.E.B Du Bois, one of the first African American’s that obtained a Ph.D. from Harvard in (1896) and shared his experience as being one of the only non-white males on a predominately all white university campus: Du Bois recalls at Harvard, “while attending a commencement social function, a lady seemed determined to mistake me for a waiter…. I was at Harvard, but not of it” (Trumpbour, John, ed., 1981). Historically, universities have catered to the dominant white western groups while excluding and subordinating the racial and ethnic groups from “legitimized” intellectual domains (universities). This is because elite universities like Harvard and Berkeley have a role in operating the hegemonic ideology of the state. This quote best describes the university’s function:
The University serves to socialize and train the next generation of guardians of the extant social, political, and economic order; and minority and Third World students, no less than others, must confront the functions of their education directly (Trumpbour, John, ed p.308)
Students of color on university campuses are forced to think thoroughly of their privileged positions, nonetheless to either establish a counter-hegemony or perpetuate the current hegemonic state.
Conclusion: Complexities with Hegemony
Hegemony is a temporary settlement and series of alliances between social groups that is won and not given. Therefore, hegemony is an end-less struggle of forces emerging to power only to be taken over by another ascending force. Hegemony is not a static entity. Take culture for example, there is no single common dominant culture but rather an array of dominant cultures. In other words, Gramsci’s concept of hegemony is one that is limited to a nation-state paradigm.
Work Cited
Althusser, Louis (1971) Ideology & Ideological State Apparatuses. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press: 127-186.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Q. Hoare & G.Nowell Smith, ed & trans. New York: International Publishers.
Churchill, Ward (1995). “White Studies: The Intellectual Imperialism of U.S. Higher Edeucation”. Since Predator Came.Aigis Press.
Hall, Stuart (1986) “Gramsci’s Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.” Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies.
Forgacs, David, ed. (2000) The Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916-1935. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Trumpbour, John, ed. (1981) How Harvard Rules: Reason in the Service of Empire. Boston, MA: SouthEnd Press.
Although Antonio Gramsci did not write about race, racism, or the colonial experience, his socio-political work is recognized throughout many academic disciplines such as cultural studies, ethnic studies, sociology, and among other fields of studies (Hall 1996). Many praise his thought for its refusal to leave the terrain of concrete historical, social and cultural realities for abstraction, economism and reductionist theoretical models (Forgacs 2000, Hall) that tend to simplify structures of social formation rather than highlight the structural complexity. Gramsci works from a Marxist terrain, however, his critical lens is in the superstructure, where institutions and culture function to uphold the structure. This paper will discuss briefly Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and how his concept(s) help explain the durability of “advanced” capitalist societies. Also, in this paper I will draw from Gramsci concept(s) of hegemony to discuss the culture and practice of white supremacy in education, particularly on the University of California Berkeley campus.
What is Hegemony?
In advanced capitalist societies, the state rules through a combination of coercion and consent. According to Gramsci the state is composed of a political society and civil society (PN 262). By political society he refers to political institutions and legal constitutional control such as schools, courts, and police authorities. By civil society he refers to private institutions and economic systems. Gramsci suggests that the two spheres (political and civil society) are what make the state overlap, making their division purely conceptual. In advanced democratic capitalist societies, for example, business owners (the bourgeoisie) have political power in public spheres because they have the power to influence electoral outcomes. For example, a state retrofit or construction project requires a construction company to supply material and labor. As “public servants,” politicians will seek out a development company that has the potential to provide financial assistance in upcoming elections – thus giving political power to the bourgeoisie economic and political interest. Common scenarios of this sort, I believe make Gramsci define the composition of the state as political society and civil society, two overlapping complex forces that converge to pave the ground of hegemony.
Hegemony is best described as a formula of rule through force and consent primarily through ideology. Ideology is understood in terms of ideas, meanings and practices that purport to be universal truths to sustain powerful social groups. Gramsci himself lays out the formula in the following way,
The maximum of legislative capacity can be inferred when a perfect formula of directives is matched by a perfect arrangement of the organisms of execution and verification, and by a perfect preparation of the ‘spontaneous’ consent of the masses who must ‘live’ those directives, modifying their own habits, their own will, their own convictions conform with those directives and with the objectives they propose to achieve. (Gramsci, Prison Notebooks p.266)
In short, laws control the lives of the masses and the masses obey to the laws that socially control their decisions. For example, if one violates the law, one is forced to settle with the courts and by coerced consent; one has to agree with the courts decision albeit guilty or not guilty. Gramsci states “hegemony [is] protected by the armour of coercion”(PN 263). In other words the masses do not randomly obey authority but obey authority because of a set of organizing and “legitimized” rules and practices are in place. Hegemony, in this case, is the process of making, maintaining and reproducing authoritative sets of meaning and practices by force and consent. Hegemony works toward the advantage of the ruling and dominant social group; in the case of the U.S., I would say it works with capitalist intent as its primary motivation.
Hegemony is creating and maintaining a common conception of the world by feeding popular ideologies to the masses.
…. the dominant group is coordinated concretely with the general interests of the subordinate groups and the life of the State is conceived of as a continuous process of formation and superseding of unstable equilibria (on the juridical plane) between the interest of the fundamental group and those of the subordinate groups-equilibria in which the interests of the dominate group prevail, but only up to a certain point, i.e. stopping short of narrowly corporate economic interest. (PN182)
For example, neo-liberal economic policies like NAFTA, are sold to the masses with fixed notions of profit and economic development; although, only to benefit the dominant group and further deprive the subordinate groups. The idea of hegemony explains how power of ascendant social groups is maintained. In my view hegemony is basically the terrain we are forced to walk on. Existing laws (policies) imposed by the state and ideologies manifested through censored media, are just two examples of how institutions force our consent and shape the terrain we walk on.
How Hegemony Operates
In advanced capitalist societies, ideology is the fuel of hegemony.
Ideas and opinions are not spontaneously ‘born’ in each individual brain: they have had a centre of formation, of irradiation, of dissemination, of persuasion-a group of me, or a single individual even, which has developed them and presented them in the political form of current reality. (PN 192)
Hegemony operates through the consent and coercion of the masses under the dominant group’s ideological parameters (rules, practices and culture). Louis Althusser (1971), in Ideology and the State views the school as the dominant ideological state apparatus because schools inculcate the ideology of the state, a sense of nationalist and liberalist ideas. Nonetheless, the school is the reproductive site of capitalist subjects, where the creation of workers, mangers and leaders are fostered. Schools enable these practices through a set of ideologies established by the ruling class. Hegemony occurs by conditioning students to practice these sets of ideologies, such as language and culture. It is through a combination of consent and coercion that enables ideologies to sustain and reproduce. Elementary schools in the U.S., for example force students every morning to pledge their allegiance to the U.S. flag. Not only are schools inculcating nationalism but they are exercising a set of ideological notions, “one nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all” which paves the hegemonic ground we walk on.
Gramsci’s Elements of Revolutionary Change
According to Gramsci, in order for revolutionary change to occur there must a be a collective political consciousness founded at the economic corporate level . First, workers must identify a struggle; “a tradesman must feel obliged to stand by another tradesman” in unity to identify a common struggle. Second, when the solidarity of interest among all the members of the social class (in this case the working-class) is reached to reform the existing fundamental structures, (thirdly) their corporate interest must transcend the corporate limits of the economic class (those in power) to garner forward the interest of the subordinate groups. According to Gramsci these are the three stages for revolutionary change. For example in the 1960, the Chicano civil rights movement formed through identifying their collective struggle (building alliances) to overcome the dominated landscape of white supremacy to move forward their own perspective on the cultural and political history of the southwest. The three stages for revolutionary change create an agenda for the subordinate group. According to Gramsci, the subordinate group must create a counter-hegemonic force through a “war of position” and “a philosophy of praxis.”
Gramsci states that “a theory is ‘revolutionary’ precisely to the extent that it is an element of conscious separation and distinction into two camps and is a peak inaccessible to the enemy camp” (p462). This philosophy of praxis is, for example, the establishment of ethnic studies on university campuses, a counter-hegemonic movement in opposition to the glorification of white studies in academia. Ward Churchill (1995) writes on whites studies and U.S. university system. Churchill states that a university education “...serves to under pin the hegemony of white supremacy in its other, more literal manifestations: economic, political, military and so on.” In this case, ethnic studies departments across university campuses are a counter-hegemonic force that attempt to penetrate dominant white academia for a more inclusive curriculum, if not establish new intellectual circles of thought.
The establishment of ethnic studies is a revolutionary change in academia, a change that was fought using the tactics of a “war of position,” rather than “war of maneuver.” Through Gramsci lens, I argue that the struggle to establish ethnic studies on university campuses, came through a ‘war of position,’ a political protracted struggle rather than a ‘war of manoeuvre,’ an upfront physical confrontational struggle (Hall, PN 233). Gramsci believed that a counter-hegemonic struggle must seek to gain ascendancy within civil society before any attempt is made on state power.
Scrutinizing the University of California Berkeley Using Gramsci’s Concepts
The University of California Berkeley (UCB) is a colonial site where we can apply some of Gramsci concepts of hegemony. UCB was founded in 1868, shortly after the U.S. – Mexican war (1846-1848). After the war, Mexico lost half of its territory to the U.S. The university today lies on a terrain that was once Mexican soil; yet nowhere on the campus is there a monument recognizing this historical fact. Additionally, not a single place on campus recognizes the extinct Ohlone indigenous peoples that occupied the San Francisco bay area before colonial settlers invaded the territory. The only place on campus that recognizes indigenous life is in Krober hall where white Anthropology department displays Ohlone artifacts on walls of the museum of anthropology for the pleasure of visiting tourist to consume. Krober hall is named after Alfred Louis Krober, a white protestant male anthropologist who was a professor at UC Berkeley from 1901-1946 and is most rewarded for studying the Indians of California . His research focused on studying the last Yahi Indian named Ishi. Ishi resided five years at the UCB’s Anthropology museum where he developed tuberculosis and died in 1916.
It is through hegemony that white settlers are able to colonize the Indian and justify their so-called “savagery” and then display the Indian pictures, language and culture. The university legitimizes this as historical preservation of the Indian. Gramsci would call it a domination by the ruling group over the Indian. Gramsci concept of hegemony helps us understand how UCB can legitimize their occupation, and colonization of indigenous people.
Pushing more on the concept of white supremacy, universities have a critical role to play for the state, which is to uphold and sustain the legitimacy of the state. The state holds its universities accountable to continue producing the knowledge that will legitimize the state’s operation. It is through cultural practices of white supremacy, that whiteness prevails to be the functioning dominant language and culture of the state. Whiteness, then, is the dominant culture on most university campuses throughout the nation (except for historically black colleges in the South) making it an explicit uncomfortable terrain for racial and ethnic minorities. W.E.B Du Bois, one of the first African American’s that obtained a Ph.D. from Harvard in (1896) and shared his experience as being one of the only non-white males on a predominately all white university campus: Du Bois recalls at Harvard, “while attending a commencement social function, a lady seemed determined to mistake me for a waiter…. I was at Harvard, but not of it” (Trumpbour, John, ed., 1981). Historically, universities have catered to the dominant white western groups while excluding and subordinating the racial and ethnic groups from “legitimized” intellectual domains (universities). This is because elite universities like Harvard and Berkeley have a role in operating the hegemonic ideology of the state. This quote best describes the university’s function:
The University serves to socialize and train the next generation of guardians of the extant social, political, and economic order; and minority and Third World students, no less than others, must confront the functions of their education directly (Trumpbour, John, ed p.308)
Students of color on university campuses are forced to think thoroughly of their privileged positions, nonetheless to either establish a counter-hegemony or perpetuate the current hegemonic state.
Conclusion: Complexities with Hegemony
Hegemony is a temporary settlement and series of alliances between social groups that is won and not given. Therefore, hegemony is an end-less struggle of forces emerging to power only to be taken over by another ascending force. Hegemony is not a static entity. Take culture for example, there is no single common dominant culture but rather an array of dominant cultures. In other words, Gramsci’s concept of hegemony is one that is limited to a nation-state paradigm.
Work Cited
Althusser, Louis (1971) Ideology & Ideological State Apparatuses. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press: 127-186.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Q. Hoare & G.Nowell Smith, ed & trans. New York: International Publishers.
Churchill, Ward (1995). “White Studies: The Intellectual Imperialism of U.S. Higher Edeucation”. Since Predator Came.Aigis Press.
Hall, Stuart (1986) “Gramsci’s Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.” Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies.
Forgacs, David, ed. (2000) The Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916-1935. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Trumpbour, John, ed. (1981) How Harvard Rules: Reason in the Service of Empire. Boston, MA: SouthEnd Press.
posted by Oscar at 10:58 PM
2 Comments:
Te aventaste con ur hegemony piece, props. cool graduate work :) i feel u on the limits of Gramsci's model. I think that's where Weber comes in. He gave a more social scientific understanding of how hegemony or counterhegemony is logistically EXECUTED as "war of position", if u will, as bureaucracies such as the Ethnic Studies Departments.
Gramsci spoke on how institutions and culture uphold the superstructure;Weber desenvolvio los details on how institutions and culture, themselves, work internally.
What's interesting is how organizations (corporations, the state, universities, Student Groups, Departments, Unions, SMO's, etc.), themselves while takin their respective hegemonic "position" in the political terrain, viewed from a comparative sociological perspective, share functionary attributes inherent to the anthropological phenomenon that is bureaucracy. What this means is that even in those institutions that are "counter-hegemonic", there exists consent & coercion + ideology as universal elements. Whys this important? Well, that anthropological dimension can give us a much clearer sense of how to navigate through the overlapping worlds of civil and political in our *counter-hegemonic* efforts. I put it in asteriks cuz u came to hte same conclusion, hegemony is not static.
Cada loco con su propio tema que tiene una organizacion en sus ojos esta imponiendo (oh tratando mas bien) his own counter-hegemonic project.
Whats hilarious, and maybe its dubious, is how because it doesn't go beyond a nation-state paradigm; how counter-hegemonic is the shit we do really? lol.
Bureucracies are essential organizing tools, and are like strong burros; sturdy and faithful, if slow and inefficient, as institutions that can survive time and keep a counterhegemonic message alive. But its success hinges on the fact it functins through coercion and consent too, albeit it justifies it through a native(read counterhegemonic) ideology to hte organization itself. Oh que no? The very fact we identify ourselves vocistas, mechistas, hermanos, gammas, oskies, californians, AMERICANS (a human identity isn't as strong, why not for xta credit?=), is a by-product of bureaucracy, the vehicle of choice for group dominance of a nation-state.
Pa que sirve este maldito ejercicio?
Pues nos da perspectiva que ayuda pa reformas al paradigma de estado-nacion.
If we can synthesize better ways of organizing ourselves that are effective and not simply counterhegemonic ideologically but physically, in terms of coercion and consent, pues podemos empezar a imaginar un nuevo mundo tambien.
Take La Voz. Wez onto something there; how we try to keep the bureaucracy as minimal as possible with just one layer of democracy. OUr fisty defiant Xicanismo unconsciouly's helps us, donde we always hatin on "presidente's".
Tarea: how can we develop an index, for lack of a better word, to more confidently gauge counter-hegemonic ascendancy within civil society?
Does a "war of maneuver" ahve to be violent?
Is money that entrenched in state power, where we can't "war of position" into state power; a more peaceful revolution?
Did Gramsci ever even think a peaceful revolution possible?
Como encaja el ideal democratico en todo esto?
Gracias for your comments! I will respond to your comments after Wednesday. I'm working on my last paper of the semester, the most exciting one, i'm sure you've read Frantz Fanon, "The Wretched of the Earth." Fanon breaks it down chingon!
Post a Comment
<< Home