Oversimplification caused the butterfly to engage in needless combat with the thorn and it ended up wearing rag as clothe and the same oversimplification caused the moth to arrogantly stretch its two wings to quench fire and it ended up being consumed by fire. We should beware of political oversimplification which may lure us to believe illogically that united we fall and divided we stand!! It is often said that Nigeria has over two-hundred ethnic languages and I don't know in which ethnic language you intend to conduct a referendum to determine alignments in your envisaged new order. Instead of distractive debate on whether Nigeria's state should be dissolved into many components or not, let us concentrate on Moses Ochonu's essay, 'Bring Back Our History' prompted by the announcement of Nigeria's Minister of Education, Malam Adamu Adamu, that the Federal Government planned to restore History subject to the Secondary School curriculum.
A people without a history, is a people without a past and a people without a past will never have a future. Nigeria has a history, a past and a future. Nigeria contains a people bounded together by the same destiny. Stressing the importance of History and lacking of it in Nigeria, Moses wrote, "Many Nigerians believe that corruption only entered the Nigerian political lexicon during our latest flirtation with democracy, that is, post-1999. Very few remember or are familiar with the corruption of the second republic, let alone the fact that the first republic was rocked by multiple corruption scandals." Thereafter, Moses buttressed his claim of history of corruption scandals in the first republic thus, "Awolowo was entangled in the Western Region Cocoa Marketing Board corruption scandal; Ahmadu Bello was tried in a colonial court for embezzlement; and Dr. Azikiwe was smeared by the corruption scandal in the Eastern Region-owned African Continental Bank, ACB." Here, Moses Ochonu is teaching false history of corruption which is worse than not teaching history at all. Beginning with Ahmadu Bello, he was District Head of Rabah between 1934 and 1938. When Sultan Hassan died in 1938, Ahmadu Bello contested against Abubakar for Sultan of Sokoto but lost. Instead, Ahmadu Bello was appointed Sardauna which entitled him to be a member of the Sultan's Council. He was, therefore, assigned to administer the sub-divisional area of Gusau. In 1944, Ahmadu Bello was convicted by Sultan Abubakar's native court for alleged discrepancies in the JANGALI (Cattle Tax) under his administration. But the conviction was reversed on appeal to a British High Court. Therefore, Ahmadu Bello returned to the Sokoto Native Administration as Sardauna to assume the portfolio of Social Services with responsibility for education and police. His relation with Sultan Abubakar improved thereafter.
As for Dr.Azikiwe, the African Continental Bank (ACB) was a rival to the colonialist owned bank, Bank of British West Africa (BBWA) in 1956. Therefore, Britain instituted Foster-Sutton Tribunal of Inquiry into African Continental Bank between September and November 1956. The Foster-Sutton report conceded 'that Dr. Azikiwe's primary motive was to make available an indigenous bank with the object of liberalizing credit for the people of this country,' yet it added that his conduct as a minister 'fell short of the expectations of honest, reasonable people.' The Tribunal concluded further that, 'Dr. Azikiwe ought to have relinquished his financial interest in the Bank when the proposal to inject public monies into it was first mooted, and that he was guilty of misconduct as a Minister in failing to do so.' On 18 January 1957, a joint meeting of the National Executive Committee and the Eastern Parliamentary Party adopted recommendations submitted by the joint (Federal and Eastern) Ministerial Council to the effect that the Eastern House of Assembly should be dissolved and that all incumbent members of the House should be re-nominated to test public confidence in the government and its policies. To dispel misgivings and uncertainties about the government's intention with respect to African Continental Bank, it was resolved in agreement with the Premier, Azikiwe, that all private interest in the bank should be transferred to the government. (see p 185 - 187, Nigerian Political Parties: Power In An Emergent African Nation By Richard L. Sklar). Although Foster-Sutton revealed that Azikiwe gave loans to Azikiwe Group of Companies and deferred repayment as far as to 1970, his action was not considered criminal and he was never prosecuted in the court.
In 1961, the Federal coalition government of NPC/NCNC decided to launch an inquiry into the National Bank of Nigeria. The Action Group controlled government under the Premiership of Samuel Ladoke Akintola challenged the constitutional right of the Federal government to conduct the enquiry at the Supreme Court and won. Then came the internal strife within the Action Group in May 1962 which the Federal coalition government of NPC/NCNC exploited to overthrow the Action Group controlled government of Western Region. Thereafter, a commission of enquiry was set up to examine the affairs of statutory corporations in the Western Region, with National Bank of Nigeria Limited as the prime target of the Commission of Inquiry chaired by Justice G. B. A. Coker. Coker commission of enquiry was politically stage-managed to question economic transactions between the National Bank of Nigeria Limited on one hand and on the other hand, National Investment and Properties Company Limited, Western Nigeria Development Corporation and Western Region Marketing Board. The Commission lost credibility when it concluded that although Akintola had been Premier for over two years, he knew nothing about the relationship between the National Bank of Nigeria owned by the Western Region and the statutory corporations controlled by his government and Awolowo alone was blamed for what the Commission termed questionable legalities. However, Awolowo was not accused of embezzlement, and not a single person was prosecuted for corruptly enriching self.
Historically, it is noteworthy that Ahmadu Bello and Azikiwe's incidents occurred in 1944 and 1956 respectively and not in the first republic. Even if Awolowo's incident occurred in 1962 after independence, Nigeria did not become a Republic until October 1, 1963 when the first republic actually began to count. Historically, Ahmadu Bello was tried for embezzlement of cattle tax but was found innocent of the charge by a superior court. Thus, no honest historian would refer to Ahmadu Bello as example of corruption in Nigeria, especially in the first republic. A good historian should be able to know the reason behind instituting a tribunal on African Continental Bank by Britain, a rival of Bank of British West Africa. Foster-Sutton Tribunal on African Continental Bank should not be used by any credible historian as a case of corruption in the first republic. Awolowo might not have been a saint, but only a corrupt historian would accuse him of corruption when he was Premier of Western Region as there was no single sentence in the November 1962 report of Coker Commission of inquiry that accused/blamed him for corruption.
S.Kadiri
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 06:17:46 +0100
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Bring Back Our History
From: oluwakaidara1@gmail.com
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
We need a referendum for all ethnicities to determine their alignments in a new order.
The old order, created by colonial masters for their own ends through force of arms, has brought constant retrogression, no consistent progress to Nigerians, along with recurrent bloodshed.On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Salimonu Kadiri <ogunlakaiye@hotmail.com> wrote:
May God grant us the day this fictive contraption called Nigeria will disintegrate - Oluwatoyin Adepoju.
You once informed members on this forum that although you bear absolutely a Yoruba name, you are not a Yoruba but an Edo State indigene. I wonder whether the word us in your prayer to God for the disintegration of Nigeria includes all Edo people? Nigeria is a multi-ethnic country but so is Edo State. If Nigeria is a contraption, so is Edo State. With a geographical area of seventeen thousand, eight-hundred and two square kilometres, and a population of three million, two-hundred and thirty-three thousand, three-hundred and sixty-six people, according to 2006 census, Edo is not a mono-ethnic but multi-ethnic state. If Nigeria should disintegrate, Edo would automatically disintegrate into its various ethnic entities that would not be capable of forming a nation individually. Thus, declaring Nigeria as an enemy by an Edo man like you is equivalent to the declaration of water as enemy by the fish which is nothing but a declaration (prayer) to self-asphyxiation.
S. Kadiri
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 10:48:47 +0100
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Bring Back Our History
From: oluwakaidara1@gmail.com
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.comFreedom..freedom....it comes....!We need liberation from this evil, from this cage, from this pit where we are locked in with cannibals.God help!When that happens, we shall stop suffering the greed and bloodlust of a group of private business people and their politician backers holding the nation hostage through state sponsored terrorism in the name of rights to roam their cattle across the country at will, invoking the Nigerian constitution in support of that right, massacring entire communities with AK47s, slaughtering sleeping women, children and men, as their political compatriots use this agony to try to force the entrenchment of these killers on other Nigerians by advocating state sanctioned enclaves across the nation for the murderers, sustained by the monies from the very people being killed.Superb piece and intriguing responses.May God grant us the day this fictive contraption called Nigeria will disintegrate.toyinOn Sat, May 21, 2016 at 2:56 AM, <ibdullah@gmail.com> wrote:Can a people/group of people lack historical memory? Can history, a sense of the rugged past/present be erased from popular/everyday memory? And is memory not a selective enterprise? A political project that excludes as much as it includes in the furtherance of specific political interests?And what history are we taking about? Academic history or history as recorded in communities? What kind of knowledge or consciousness animates the countless blood-letting that has characterised the history of post-colonial Nigeria/Africa? Is it not a sense of history; a particular interpretation of the past that has been at the centre of ethnic negotiations in post-colonial Nigeria.These questions begin to undermine your interpretation of "history" as a form of knowledge and as an academic discipline in a post-colony. What prevails in Nigeria--the absence of history as a subject in high school--seems to be the norm in many parts of the continent.Kimathi may have been buried in an unmarked grave by the British colonialists, but Kenyatta's blue-eyed boy, Mwai Kibaki, brought him back as a national hero by erecting a life size statute in his honor in down-town Nairobi. If history were truly dead and absent Kibaki would not have walked that route. Similarly, when Mzee Kenyatta scolded Bildad Kaggia, not Mzee Odinga, publicly about the bounties of Harambee, Mzee Kenyatta was reading from a particular script--the hegemonic script which has engulfed the dominant political bloc in post-colonial Africa. His affirmation and preference for Harambee ironically gave voice to the suppressed alternative: Not yet Uhuru!The challenge is not about bringing back academic history in schools though that might present itself as the solution to historical selectivity not historical memory. The challenge is how to understand and disentangle the messiness of several narratives about the our complex pasts existing in diverse enclaves as a source of knowledge (weapon) appropriated by the aggrieved in furtherance of specific political objectives. This is how I understand your reference to the notorious trio-Zik/Awo/Sardauna--and their role in shaping contemporary political discourse in Nigeria.
Sent from my iPhone
Bring Back Our History
By Moses E. Ochonu
The Minister of Education, Malam Adamu Adamu, said recently that the Nigerian government plans to restore history to the secondary school curriculum. For inexplicable reasons, history was excised from the curriculum several years ago. The government's decision is commendable but they should get started on its implementation because historical illiteracy and amnesia is slowly killing the country. We are a country afflicted by an epidemic of forgetting and "moving forward." We move forward without understanding and resolving our past only to realize at great cost that our unfinished businesses are holding us captive and stalling our forward mobility.
The absence of historical consciousness in Nigeria hurts and haunts the country in multiple ways. Take corruption. Many Nigerians believe that corruption only entered the Nigerian political lexicon during our latest flirtation with democracy, that is, post-1999. A few may cite the military era that preceded the fourth republic. Very few remember or are familiar with the corruption of the second republic, let alone the fact that the first republic was rocked by multiple corruption scandals.
The absence of historical memory in the domain of corruption is the reason many Nigerians say Nigeria should "move forward" instead of investigating past crimes. Grappling with the past and addressing its tragedies and residual pains is seen as moving backwards, opening old wounds. It is the reason many are willing, even eager, to forgive past political crimes against the Nigerian people. It is the reason we are too quick to move on to new scandals, the reason we get bored with old crimes, and fail to see a trans-regime tapestry of corruption and abuse of power. It is the reason we see political malfeasance and misbehavior in isolated blocks rather than as continuities, rather than as a continuum needing to be disrupted.
This dearth of history in our public discourse is the reason old criminals are quickly ignored and manage to sneak back, unnoticed, into the orbit of power, their crimes forgotten. It is the reason that politicians delay their corruption trials, knowing that our legendary short memory and disconnection from history will buy them time, enabling their troubles to fizzle out.
It is as though our baseline of remembering is yesterday. It was the literary icon, Chinua Achebe, who said perspicaciously that, if we are going to fix Nigeria, we should go back to when the rain started beating us. This was a compelling statement on the value of retrospective reflection, of history, in our search for diagnostic and ameliorative ideational tools. The irony and problem is that many Nigerians believe that the proverbial rain started beating us in 2010, 1999, or with the annulment of the June 12 presidential election in 1993. We have historical shortsightedness.
There are Nigerians who believe that election rigging, political opportunism, incompetence, and leadership indifference are phenomena associated with the post-1999 period, or that, at worst, they go back to the second republic. The first republic is often understood in simplistic terms of the "good old days." But those days weren't so good, at least not politically. There are Nigerians for whom even the Obasanjo administration is a distant and irrelevant past, unrelated to the challenges of the present.
A Dangerous History?
Some people say Nigerian history is too contentious and that teaching it would create more problems that it would solve. All histories are contentious — and contested. This argument against the teaching of Nigerian history is founded on a naively simplistic notion of history. History is not a single, consensual story about an event, nation, or people, or an attempt to produce such a monolithic narrative. History is the sum of many stories, all of them purporting to explain the same thing. Every historical work tells just one out of many possible stories. The notion of narrating the past "as it happened" is passé, a futile quest that no historian I know subscribes to.
This complexity does not, however, take away from history's importance to nation building. It enhances it. The idea that it would be dangerous to teach Nigerian secondary school students and university undergraduates about the Nigerian civil war, to use an oft-cited example, is responsible for the unforgivable ignorance of Nigerians about this recent war that continues to haunt and plague the nation. This idea, too, rests on the erroneous notion that we must find a consensus on how to teach Nigerian history or that we must teach it uniformly across the country or we shouldn't teach it at all. We have boxed ourselves into a corner of self-annihilating historical ignorance with this all-or-nothing logic.
We are now producing secondary school and university graduates who cannot make sense of Nigeria beyond 1999 or 1993, graduates whose only knowledge of the troubles of the first republic and the civil war is filtered through contemporary ethno-religious politics detached from a history of British conquest, amalgamation, colonization, and the troubled, colonially stage-managed march to independence.
How can we build a nation with generations buried in a depth of historical ignorance?
Speaking of nation building, no nation is to be taken for granted, and the imperative of building and rebuilding the nation is precisely why serious countries invest in the study of history, including the United States, where some American history is taught in middle school, is compulsory in secondary school, and is among a set of humanities and social science courses university students, regardless of their Majors, must take.
Nigerian history is no more dangerous than other histories. The disruptive crises and events that seem to proliferate in Nigerian history are offset and positively negated by a long history of associational, marital, mercantile, cultural, political, linguistic, and genetic comingling by Nigeria's many ethnic groups and kingdoms.
We seem to perpetually grope for symbols and histories upon which to posit and defend the basis for Nigeria's oneness, but we prohibit the teaching of a history that demonstrates a long, precolonial period of intertwinements between Nigeria's many constituencies.
Ahistorical Nationalist Myths
Because we no longer study out past, the pioneer politicians who superintended the Nigerian state at independence are often lionized and almost divinized as icons of nationalist commitment and probity. Historically uninformed Nigerians portray them as paragons of ethical rectitude, but all three notable regional political heavyweights were dogged by corruption scandals in the first republic. Awolowo was entangled in the Western Region Cocoa Marketing Board corruption scandal; Ahmadu Bello was tried in a colonial court for embezzlement; and Dr. Azikiwe was smeared by the corruption scandal in the Eastern Region-owned African Continental Bank, ACB.
There is a related notion out there that Nigeria's founding fathers and the main political protagonists of the Second Republic, Balewa, Awolowo, Zik, Ahmadu Bello, and others, were exemplars of patriotism. We are told that Nigeria lost its way when it moved away from the vision of the founding fathers or first republic statesmen, when subsequent generations of leaders abandoned any loyalty to Nigeria and began serving their pockets and ethno-regional interests. A binary opposition is posited between founding nationalists and their parochial, divisive successors.
Nothing could be more ahistorical than this portrayal. With the exception perhaps of Zik, these founding politicians did not even believe in the nation and merely went along with what the British desired and designed. They were more committed to their various provincial identities and aspirations and regularly dramatized the differences between the different peoples of the union in their speeches and writings.
Chief Obafemi Awolowo is often regarded as the oracle of Nigeria's struggle with unity. Much of this reputation emanates from this statement he made:
"Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no 'Nigerians' in the same sense as there are 'English,' 'Welsh,' or 'French,' The word 'Nigeria' is a mere distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria and those who do not." (Chief Obafemi Awolowo, 1947).
But Awolowo was hardly alone in his skepticism of Nigeria's workability as a nation. Tafawa Balewa, for his part, made the following statement:
"Since 1914 the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs and customs and do not show themselves any signs of willingness to unite … Nigerian unity is only a British invention." (Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, 1948).
On a separate occasion, the future prime minister had this to say about the prospect of Nigerian nationhood:
"Since the amalgamation of the Southern and Northern Provinces in 1914, Nigeria has existed as one country only on paper. It is far from being united. The country is inhabited by peoples and tribes who speak different languages, who have different historic backgrounds in their way of life and have also attained different stages of development."
Two decades later, when the strains of regional rivalries and distrust had registered tragically, even the pan-Africanist, Nnamdi Azikiwe, suggested that he no longer believed in Nigeria as a nation:
"It is better for us and many admirers abroad that we should disintegrate in peace and not in pieces. Should the politicians fail to heed the warning, then I will venture the prediction that the experience of the Democratic Republic of Congo will be a child's play if it ever comes to our turn to play such a tragic role" - Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, 1964.
In his 1962 autobiography/memoir, Sir Ahmadu Bello made the following telling statement:
"The colonial master who ruled Nigeria introduced a system of unitary government not for the present or future unity or wellbeing of all indigenes of the country, but for its own administrative convenience. Lord Lugard and his amalgamation were far from popular amongst us at that time." (Ahmadu Bello, My Life, p. 135).
These words are eerily similar to the centrifugal and provincial words of our politicians today, but we don't make the connection to the past. If we don't appreciate the propensity of history to repeat itself or for historical attitudes to persist into the present, how can we break the cycle?
Nigeria is not the only country that has erected myths around its founding fathers and politicians. The United States, where I reside, engages in this type of mythmaking and ahistorical lionization of its founding fathers. The reputations of American founding fathers are sanitized and rewritten to exclude the odious things they did, said, and practiced, and their commitment to the country, circumscribed and self-interested as it was, is given a nationalist gloss, a hyper-patriotic makeover.
Go to Kenya. Jomo Kenyatta is venerated as a nationalist founding deity. But it was this same Kenyatta who, when asked about his involvement in the Mau Mau anticolonial rebellion, cowardly and opportunistically denied knowing Dedan Kimathi, the Mau Mau leader who, along with his fighters, laid down their lives to defend their sovereignty and rights, and whose rebellion ultimately pressured Britain to initiate decolonization.
It was this same Kenyatta who, my Kenyan professor friend tells me, once berated Oginga Odinga because the latter had not amassed any wealth despite having served in the post-independence government for several years — for, so the story goes, not having anything to show for his position in the government. What was Odinga doing for himself, Kenyatta is said to have asked his then political ally. In other words, Kenyatta was scolding Odinga for not stealing and personalizing state funds as other "nationalists" had been doing as a reward for playing supporting cast to Kenyatta. How many Kenyans know this history in its full, uncomfortable complexity?
Today, the late elder Kenyatta takes his place as the sole occupant of a pantheon of anticolonial nationalist heroes while Dedan Kimathi lies buried in an unmarked grave somewhere in Kenya.
The myth of African nationalist founding fathers extends everywhere on the continent. In Tanzania, it is now forgotten that Mwalimu Nyerere, despite his commendably ascetic lifestyle and nationalist intentions, was an intolerant politician who drove several of his opponents, including Oscar Kambona, his former best friend, into exile.
It is now hardly remembered that Guinea's Sekou Toure was a paranoid dictator and ethnic bigot who violently hounded his political opponents and their ethnic kinsmen.
There are no perfect nationalists or founding fathers anywhere, and I do not write this to discredit the legacies of Africa's many founding nationalist heroes who are, despite their imperfections, enjoying deserved retrospective appreciation in their countries. But this reputational restoration is in some cases simply a case of present troubles making the past seem better than it was. Some of it is attributable to historical illiteracy, and to the crude reduction of history to a set of fumigated nationalist narratives. Some of it is a product of chronocentric nostalgia, the idea of every generation regarding its era or the past generally as being better than the present.
I have written this piece solely to question the widespread idea that we had a glorious postcolonial past and that today's sociopolitical and economic realities are radical departures from that past. I get tired of ahistorical whitewashing of founding statesmen men as exemplars of what was right about their nations, as embodiments of better times and politics in these countries, from which subsequent generations purportedly strayed.
This narrative is not founded on compelling evidence from that past, and is largely a fantastical, feel-good, critique of the present. It is a critique that works by romanticizing the past and its political actors. More crucially, I would argue that it is a product of our aversion to history, to actually studying what occurred in the past — even if some of it is an unsettling revision of what we believe to have occurred — in order to understand how that past informs and is implicated in the affairs of the present.
We historians have a name for this problem of excluding a rigorous study of the past from an interpretation of the present: presentism. It is the obsession with the present as a stand-alone period detached from and uninformed by the past. Presentism says basically that the present explains itself, that we do not need the past to illuminate our present conditions and circumstances. Presentism is a dangerous societal disease, and it currently appears to be domiciled in Nigeria.
Let us tackle this disease headlong. So I say to Malam Adamu, #BringBackOurHistory.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment