In my introductory post, I offered a simple but controversial thesis that underlines my work: the field of Global Health as it is does not pursue global health, and a new social body pursuing a new conceptualization of global health that truly lives up to the beauty and potential of the phrase “global health” is needed. In addition to this, I include a secondary thesis that goes something like this: the transnational social body of “Global Health” is one pursuit of “global health” that currently exists, has existed, and will exist that is intrinsically and intimately linked to coloniality, capitalist reproduction, and Western domination. Undoubtedly, these are two quite large and controversial assertions. Because I believe framing Global Health as a singularity in the midst of a plethora of alternate possibilities is an essential practice if we are to truly change the field, further exploration of these ideas is needed. This essay is the first of a two-part series on these theories. Here, I expand on this idea of Global Health as the social project of making a specified “other” healthier that is unique to this globalized world, but not the only mass moral project that humans have pursued in history. In other words, here I will outline a comparative theory of Global Health—something I think is quite novel that allows us to see the field in new ways.
This theory will take the previous conceptualization of “Global Health”—a constructed social body of knowledge, industry, and practice spanning across the globe but linked to very particular institutions, political organizations, and philanthropic projects—and “global health”—the ideal that all the world should have equitable access to health services and opportunities to be healthy—and refine it. Here, I seek to more tangibly locate Global Health in the depth of human history. If Global Health is one social body in pursuit of one conceptualization of the ideal of “global health,” or, making a specified group of other people’s lives better, what are these other pursuits? What have they done? How are they similar or different to us? And, most importantly, how can we better understand our Global Health in relation to these other mass projects large-scale social organizations have collectively undertaken in different places, under different logics, at different times in human history?
I proceed as follows. I first dive into a theory of imperial control, coercion, and assimilation in order to frame the logic and the necessity of “humanitarian” project conducted by past empires—the only comparable social unit that could undertake the efforts like Global Health. I then outline three examples of such “humanitarian” projects and connect the dots between them to unravel a theory of benevolence inside an imperial system. Turning to modernity and this unique global empire of colonial racial capitalism, I show how Global Health is parallel to these efforts. In all, I offer a comparative theory of imperial benevolence programs in order to argue that Global Health is facet of that empire and a major moral justification for its continuation.
The History of Imperial “Humanitarian” Projects
The debates over how a specified group of people that rule a large social body called an empire maintains their power and control over their immediate subjects—the “imperial core”—and the peoples they conquer further away from that core has existed for as long as there have been empires themselves. Often, historians conceptualize authoritarian imperial rule over their subjects, or legitimizing their authority over people, through the mixed leveraging of religion, bureaucracy, infrastructure, and force. However, I believe there may be another prominent mechanism of imperial control. It can be understood, briefly and incompletely, like this:
In order to establish recognized, legitimate authority, the conquerors must always have at least the threat of violence to enact on the conquered. Whether that be directly through policing of occupied land by the conquering of military, indirectly through threats of deploying that military, constricting economic activities, or denying essential resources, the conquerors must monopolize this threat of violence over the conquered to hold sovereign power over the conquered territory.
At the same time, the empire must rationalize and justify the monopolization of violence and the potential enactment of it to both the imperial core and the conquered lands. That is, ruling by the threat of violence or the constant enactment of violence is possible, but because people quite often don’t like being oppressively ruled, this breeds resistance and is quite hard to maintain for long periods of time. Therefore, the empire also employs different projects to incentivize imperial domination and create the illusion that life under the empire is better than past and potentially future autonomy.
This is usually quite easy in the core as they more readily benefit materially from the empire’s existence and the tradition of imperial acceptance is long established. After all, as it has been said, “everyone who has ever lived in an empire thinks they live in the most morally correct empire.” Imperial expansion is often morally justified to the people by “othering” non-conquered or recently conquered peoples and then calling for the morals and knowledges of the core to be imposed on the lesser, othered, peripheral peoples.
The issues arise in the periphery where the core’s knowledge, ways of being, and values are foreign and naturalize the empire’s rule is unnatural. Imperial rule must be recast as something that is positive, or, at the very least, something that is livable under.
One way this rationalization and justification has been advanced is through the employment of morally-grounded benevolence projects distributing material resources and technologies from the elite of the imperial core to the periphery. While these projects are on the surface created and advanced for sentiments of good-will, moral righteousness, or religious favor, they are, in the end, facets of imperial advancement.
Let’s explore some examples.
Euergetism in the Ancient Mediterranean
Perhaps the classic example is what is widely known today as “bread and circus”—the effervescent, timeless strategy of Roman imperial appeasements of the masses through food allocation and mass entertainment events. This strategy has been enshrined in the popular imagination, but to Classics scholars panem et circenses is a small part of a much longer, multi-century system. Euergetism, derived from the ancient Greek phrase meaning “good works,” is the term given to a system of moralistic gifting and patronage from rich citizens to the common masses throughout the ancient Mediterranean world practiced on and off throughout the Greek and Roman empires and republics. While euergetism differed between time and place, it was, broadly, a large-scale, moralistically driven system of gift giving. Elite citizens and the government—which were usually intimately interlinked or one and the same—gifted public works, mass festivals, or popular infrastructure to cities and in return citizens would bestow honorifics and status upon the elite. This system is, arguably, one of the bases for notions of modern state governance functioning for the benefit of its citizens.
How was euergetic exchange a tool of imperial expansion and swaying of conquered peoples to obey, though? Understanding this begins by understanding the very origin of euergetism in Ancient Greece. According to many classical scholars, the system that would then be institutionalized in imperial practice began as exchanges between elites in different Greek city states. In hopes of establishing xenia—ritualized friendships between people of different polis—Greek elites would gift each other’s cities public works such as building stadiums or putting on feasts in exchange for honorifics from that polis in return. In short, the ritualistic benefactors of ancient Greek polis were largely foreigners.
By the time the Roman Empire was at its peak, this gifting beyond an elite’s own city state was widely practiced. Through euergetism, peripheral Roman lands became intimately intertwined with the core’s market. For example, classicist Daniel Hoyer argues that conquered North African territories became entrenched in the Roman economic system through competition of Roman elites to outspend each other on public goods in the centuries around 0 CE. Competing to be the most honored elites in these North African cities, elites would build massive Romanesque coliseums, temples, markets, and other public infrastructure and/or host massive ritual feasting. Through this, not only did these cities become entrenched in the core’s economic system as elites became more recognized and the infrastructure to create trade increased, but their surrounding areas “developed” along Roman logics and norms. The people began to demand euergetism and the goods they brought like Roman citizens in Italy and this moral ideology of patron and client became normalized. In other words, euergetic relations in North Africa helped facilitate the regions Romanization.
Awaqf across Islamic Imperial History
To many scholars, the “equivalent” (i.e. cultural dynamic that is incredibly similar but must be seen in its own cultural context) to euergetism in the Islamic imperial era is the waqf. An endowment, charitable fund, or wealth-holding for the public benefit of Muslims, scholars of early Islam have established that the waqf was an invention in the first century following the birth of Islam. Following Qur’anic passages about zakat— “alms” and one of the five pillars of Islam—and early hadiths of the Prophet and his followers, elites and private organizations in the decades following the Prophet’s death began to establish endowments dedicated to public works and goods. Throughout the history of Islamic sultanates and empires from 800 CE to the fall of the Ottomans in the early 20th century, awaqf were a cornerstone of imperial governance and economics.
What we are concerned with here, though, is how awaqf were used to manufacture consent in conquered regions of different empires at different times. Like euergetism, this manifested in different times in different places over a millennium, but a few salient examples of our topic of interest emerge. While there is evidence awaqf were common tools of imperial expansion in the Mughal Empire, the Ottoman Empire is my study of choice.
According to scholars, throughout the height of the Ottoman Empire the Sultan waqf was used to consolidate political authority in conjunction with pursuits of the public good. In peripheral regions, Sultans would undertake public work projects to not undermine the power of local elites and facilitate ideological manipulation towards acceptance of the Sultan.
“Inca Omniscient Benevolence”
A lesser-known but still widely outlined strategy is a form of feasting once widely used by the Inca Empire. According to archeological record, Inca conquerors would establish control of conquered territory through gift-giving, technological dissemination, and ritual feasting diverting resources from the capital in Cuzco to the conquered region. Local crews were then organized to build state facilities, temples, storehouses, and roads to tie the conquered land to the established core using imported Inca knowledge and methods. In exchange for this labor, the Inca state would host massive ritual feasts. At these feasts, Inca bureaucrats and politicians would lavish local tributary elites and commoners alike with maize, a sacred crop, and other rare and tabooed foods in massive quantities. In this tributary imperial system, the central state did not control labor and production. The feasts were designed to formalize a reciprocal economic exchange: local elites kept control of everyday production, but the state controlled the mass labor projects.
However, the changes these feasts ensured were deeper than simple economic exchanges. They were moralistic projects. These events were not only designed to immediately appease the masses through a Romanesque “bread and circus” type atmosphere, but also facilitate ideological coercion. Through the rulers serving the ruled—both in these ritual feasts and in gifting them technology and knowledge—power relationships became mystified and beliefs, ways of being, and norms became more palatable. Imperial rule and the divinity of the empire—which had not too long ago turned the rural localities upside-down through military conquest—slowly became normal through continued dissemination of technologies and benevolence campaigns. Because the system was tributary, production largely remained unchanged and local elites remained in power. However, over time, the “Inkaness”—the gradual acceptance of Inca knowledge, political terms, and religious zealotry for the ancestor and emperor—became accepted through the state’s generosity and the “betterment” of it. Conquered Inca territories “developed” toward imperial notions of normal, dictated by logics exported from Cuzco, and facilitated by an “omniscient benevolence”—a manufactured ideology where the state was seen as a mystically legitimate force and the emperor as a good, divine ruler.
Imperial Moral Projects
What we have here is a very brief and incomplete overview of a salient theme of imperial control deployed by different empires at different times. It is not clear that this is an inherent part of imperialism, but certainly there is a pattern across time and space. As seen, sometimes these projects are conducted by government agents directly deployed by the imperial core to facilitate control. Other times, they are done by individual elites pursuing a moral or economic goal. Often, they targeted the elites of the conquered areas and tried to incentivize them to adapt the ways of being and thinking of the core. In every example, these projects spread from the core with the intention of altering the lives of conquered peoples guided by a specified moral ideology. This is the key: these large-scale projects of social change were all done with moral intentionality and political potentiality. That is, they were often not directly employed to expand imperial authority and control as many other projects were, but rather indirectly did so by manufacturing complacency amongst conquered peoples through the implementation of these projects and their ideas. This, in turn, created support for the empire in the periphery and enshrines the moral ideologies of those in the core all the while the empire’s monopoly of violence was subverted. Of course, violence would always reemerge when the empire was challenged or did not get its way. However, these moral projects certainly make both control over the imperial core easier and the peripheries more straightforward, as the empire’s unequal benefits and violent practices are morally justified amongst those in the core and the periphery becomes more complacent as the immediate threat of violence retreats. Direct violence and its costs are employed less, the people of the periphery begin acting, thinking, and believing more like those in the core, and the relations of power between the core and the periphery becomes crystalized. “Humanitarianism,” for lack of a pan-historical, culturally contextual word, is often intimately linked to the politics of empire.
I believe that understanding this particular phenomenon is important because it is perhaps the most prominent method of imperial control being deployed today. Really, what I have just outlined here are small examples of temporally specific, culturally contextualized versions of “Global Health,” and the underlying logic of the field inside a new age of empire.
Global Health is Imperialism: A Theory
It is becoming increasingly fashionable, and I think accurately, to conceptualize the globalized world as what is described as “the new age of empire.”1 The argument, which has been largely developed by radical Black Studies scholars2 and Latin American school of coloniality/decoloniality,3 goes like this:
The events of white European colonization and imperialism, which resulted in a small group of similar culture groups from the continent ruling 85% of the worlds land by the early 20th century, both allowed Europe to extract the resources needed to facilitate rapid technological and industrial change and drastically altered the societies that Europe conquered.
While most formerly colonized peoples gained territorial sovereignty over their colonially-constructed states, the relations of power between those formerly colonized peoples and formerly colonizing states remains largely unaltered. That is, because the world is homogenously sectioned off into Western conceived political organizations called nation-states, those nation-states facilitate both the education of their subjects along Western knowledge systems, and are designed to facilitate and reproduce capitalist markets, colonization never really ended. The bourgeoisie of these nations directly supports this continued exploitation, while European style bureaucracies and managerial positions are mimicked and pursued by the educated classes of these nations. The coloniality of power—the matrix of governance, ways of being, and thinking born in Western Europe and imposed onto the rest of the world functioning to maintain Euro-American control over this emerged global system—still largely structures global life.
Through the neoliberalization of capitalist markets at the time when the Soviet Union and multipolar global relations were collapsing, the world has experienced a process of increasing interconnectivity and hegemony under Western-favoring and conceived neoliberal capitalism. We have become united under the global market modeled off of the ones of Europe, sectioned entirely into the political organization of the nation-state exported from Europe, and enshrined by European methods of categorizing people—mainly, race and gender—and imagining what society is and how it changes—mainly, through the state and towards linear growth. In other words, we live in a new age of, albeit extremely complex, racial capitalist empire that facilitates resource movement towards elites in Europe and their settler-colonial states.
Like all empires, if it is challenged violence will be mobilized. In this case, the protection of capital and this relation of power is usually called NATO, but is really just United States’ most powerful military in human history and their friends in Europe flexing when they please to keep the US Dollar and Euro-American corporations powerful.
You can probably guess where I’m going with this, so let us cut to the chase: Global Health, much like the efforts of past empires, is part of the apparatus of trans-national bureaucracies, pseudo-intellectual fields of academic inquiry, and petty movement of resources guided by moral sentiments that functions as a justifier for colonial racial capitalist global ordering. In other words, this is the argument why Global Health is imperialism.
The current literature on the history of Global Health has done incredible work establishing the basis for this theory. Through the work of Randall Packard, Alexandre White, and others,4 we have established that Global Health is a field directly and intimately descended from colonial tropical medicine. We can trace its rise first through Cold War international health programs to the dawn of neoliberal capitalistic expansion around the world commonly called “globalization.” The issue is this analysis largely ends here. While a small but growing movement of scholars in Global Health are mapping how coloniality inherently shapes the field and what we can do to facilitate decolonial thought,5 the vast majority have internalized that we are the institutional descendants of colonists and imperialists, but continue working as if that is no longer the case. In short, Global Health is built on cognitive dissonance following this loose, arbitrarily constructed creed: we are not the same as tropical health, we are trying to eliminate “colonial practices,” therefore our work still has value and is justified.
This moral sentiment that underlines the field is what I will call the “mythical charter of Global Health,” and I believe in order to achieve global health it must be critically examined and eradicated.6 The first step of this is to build on the work of Packard, White, and other historians of Global Health to trace how the field is not only historically colonial and imperial, but rather actively colonial and imperial. This is where the comparative analysis above becomes paramount, for it shows that understanding Global Health is incomplete without understanding the nature of empire.
If we currently live in the empire of racial capitalism directly born from 20th century European imperialism that has been strategically expanded to encompass the world, one of its strategies (and even, perhaps, a fundamental need) is to morally justify its reign and manufacture consent in both the core and the peripheral populations. Undoubtedly, the major facets of this are coloniality, racism, and myth. The Enlightenment mythos of linear “development” of society toward industrial capitalistic modernity that has been internalized in most places around the world. As the core theory of coloniality tells us, this permeates all parts of modern life for the purpose of keeping European-American extractive relationships in place.
However, coloniality cannot be the only explanation. How can seven decades of failure to “develop” according to Western logics of progress and advancement in many formerly colonized nation-states rationalized and continue despite these failures? More importantly, how are underlying global capitalistic economic relations covered up and justified? This is where the Roman elites competing to build the best public projects in former Carthaginian North Africa, Islamic Sultans utilizing the waqf to build ideological hegemony, and Incan politicians hosting mass ritual feasts to make imperial rule digestible and mystical among conquered people become vital. The development industry that Global Health makes up a significant portion of—the billions of dollars of resource donations, the Randomized Control Trials attempting to prove the efficiency of minute interventions, the trans-bureaucratic structures that claim globality bur bow down to capitalistic interest—have the same structural function as these past projects. Global Health serves the same subverted efforts of imperial expansion as these past moral projects did for their empires.
Like these past projects in Rome, the Islamic Golden Age, and the Incan Andes, these projects spread from the core with the intention of altering the lives of (now formerly but still structurally dependent) conquered peoples guided by the specified moral ideology of Western-based humanitarianism and health. These projects—imagined, structured, and regulated by people and social bodies who have disproportionate amounts of wealth and power in the first place—are conducted with moral intentionality, but also serve the politics of the imperial, capitalistic core. Global Health, as many of its practitioners state directly, seeks to work “inside the system” in conjunction with imperialistic North Atlantic nation-states and the corporations inside their borders they protect. It seeks to disseminate the knowledge of the colonizers from metric-based, individualist-focused epidemiology to Western definitions of diseases. It deploys petty interventions on individual behaviors and local structures rather than global capitalist structuring that creates unequal suffering because it can’t oppose that structure—it is a sometimes burgeoningly, sometimes enthusiastic, but always inherent supporter of those very structures.
Thus, the subverted nature of Global Health’s facilitation of imperialistic capitalism operates on two levels. The first is coloniality which, as we have established, is designed to facilitate empire. Global Health is intrinsically based on the assumptions of linear societal development and the dissemination of White capitalistic ways of being to promote health. This has been widely documented. The second is the one we talk about less. Global Health indirectly aids imperial efforts by taking attention, resources, and space away from other ideas and efforts. In this global social body, inequality exists. Everyone knows this, but how is it largely justified? In the popular imagination the first thought is obviously advancement through capitalistic means—which is laboring or acquiring resources through people working for you. But when that fails, which it often does, there is Global Health and its peers. While there is inequality, there are at least good people and organizations working to “reduce poverty” or “improve health outcomes.” Anyone who thinks critically, especially those who are targeted by these programs, knows that these organizations and their projects are not massively improving the lives of formerly colonized populations. However, the mere fact that these programs exist and continue and are actively promoted governments, powerful public figures, and global bureaucratic bodies is sufficient for people, especially those in wealthy places or of elite status, to believe that enough is being done for “unfortunate” or “poor” people. In other words, in the political economy of social change, liberal humanitarianism has unequal power over otherwise pursuits—that of revolutionary and abolitionist change—and can be actively pointed towards as to why radical social change through revolutionary means is not needed. Global Health, the imperial humanitarian project, oppressively dominates the popular imagination of global health, the idea of making the world a healthier place so much so they can barely be separated anymore.
Really, all I am pointing out here is ethnocentrism (disciplinecentrism? moderncentrism?) and a disconnection between how we collectively define ourselves versus how we label other humans in other times and places. Most of us in Global Health would be quick to point out that these past “humanitarian” programs are imperial efforts while claiming ours is “complex” or “multilayered” or “global.” Which it is. Global Health is much more complex, multilayered, and global than these other efforts. However, this does not negate the fields function in the larger superstructure. Did the Romans who built stadiums or statues in Carthage or Incans who hosted mass feasts think that their efforts were complex, multilayered or even global? Who knows, but probably. They are equally as human as we are. They lived in political structures and social worlds equally as complex and unknowable as ours. They critiqued, complained, and contemplated over these systems just as we do. It’s likely at one point someone somewhere at one of these times asked another participating, in their own language and culturally contextual way, “hey, isn’t it a bit fucked up that we are imposing our ways of being and thinking onto these people we just decimated in the name of humanity?” To which the other responded, “yeah, but at least they are better off than they were.”
Similarly, when seen from the perspective of imperial power’s antithesis—resistance movements—Global Health as an imperial pursuit is not too difficult to conceptualize. Being brutally honest with ourselves, in this age of capitalistic, Global North favoring empire, when has Global Health ever aligned itself with those who are against these forces? From Communists in Cuba to Indigenous rebels fighting for liberation in Peru and Zapatista anarchists in Mexico, Global Health organizations and programs are quite simply seen as intermediaries of the world they vehemently oppose. We spend a lot more time on mental gymnastics trying to convince ourselves our programs and research are aligned with these people rather than actually joining their struggles against the world we continue to advance and create.
Despite any metrical progress that the Global Health industry might have made, it has simultaneously been the benevolence arm of capitalistic control. These “wins” come at the expense of facilitating the continuation of the system that created the structures of the ailment in the first place. Ouroboric, like a snake eating its own tail, global racial capitalism creates issues of mass inequality and inequitable opportunities for health and uses global health, which it funds with many strings attached, to “solve” those issues. We, Global Health, are the moral project designed to help maintain the myth that this capitalistic present can dramatically create health equity from the efforts of an apparatus of altruistic people and the scant amount of resources they can distribute; that the myth of progress to industrialization is not a myth, and that Western control is justified and good. The existence and our maintenance of global health actively justifies Western domination. We are the field that permits the systems that create global inequality to continue their reign. This is what Global Health does at a grand scale while it tracks diseases, attempts to build health systems, and, generally, intervenes in the lives of people in the Global Health to attempt to improve their health outcomes. We are a part of the imperial apparatus of capital, not the changers of it or the liberators from it.
Conclusion
This is hardly the first time the argument that development, humanitarianism, and the fields that conduct them are justifications for continued capitalist and Western domination has been made. Back when he was a medical student, the late and brilliant Sam Dubal demonstrated how Partners in Health, despite their “radical” rhetoric, are still grounded in liberal principles and supporters of the same imperial, capitalist systems like the rest of Global Health through their alliance with the neoliberal, US backed regime in early 2000s Peru.7 Contrasting Global Health with Cuban medical missions around the Global South, in which Cuban doctors did medical work in solidarity with anti-imperial resistance movements and political education campaigns, anthropologist Sean Brotherton unravels the normative assumptions of Global Health as blatantly anti-communist, pro-neoliberal expansion, and intrinsically linked to Western imperial desires. This work directly builds on these two scholars and their unapologetic placement of Global Health as an imperial enterprise.
Beyond creating a general theory of imperial humanistic benevolence projects, what I have done here is connect Global Health to imperial nature. That is, I have shown how the structural functionalism—how it operates in the wider cultural context it is a part of—is quite similar to that of other imperial “humanitarian” projects in other times and places. Empires can develop these moralistic projects that on the surface are framed as righteous and “good,” but also serve the alternate function of advancing imperial control, manufacturing complacency amongst conquered peoples, and quelling revolutionary dissent. In this age of global racial capitalism, Global Health is one of a few social bodies that functions in this way.
In this, I have attempted to develop an argument against many of the ways we in Global Health argue that our field does not have imperial structuring and functions. Unsurprisingly in this neoliberal, hyper-individualistic era, often empire gets reduced to individual acts. How am I advancing global racial capitalism by participating in Global Health? What can I do to change my practices so I do not perpetuate these dynamics? What I am trying to show here is that these aren’t the most productive questions. We are in this matrix of power that extends far beyond the bounds of our field. Not only is this much bigger than you, me, and any one of us who participates in or affiliates with Global Health, but this is much bigger than Global Health itself. We collectively are a cog of a machine that is so large and massive that we will never fully understand it. I don’t think we are at a place where individuals can ask what they should do, because we are not even thinking or talking about what we are doing in the world today in the broadest sense, and that is advancing racial capitalistic interest.
This is a grim thing to process. It is undoubtedly hard to hear that no, Global Health actually does not do good in this world. However, defaulting to doom and hopelessness should not be the default reaction when we admit to ourselves that we are, indeed, inherently linked to imperial and capitalist interest. Instead, I believe it should be freeing. I discuss this in the second essay of this series where I will offer a way to think about what we should do with this realization. Or, in other words, I ask the question when we think of Global Health as one of many pursuits of global health, and this Global Health we have created is imperialistic, what does that tell us about what the moral ideal of global health can be? In the answer to that question we can begin to discern what to do both as individuals and collectively as people in this precarious superstructure of Global Health.
See
The New Age of Empire by Kehinde Andrews
or
Hardt, M. and Negri, A., 2001. Empire. In Empire. Harvard University Press.
See: Decolonial Marxism, and all work, by Walter Rodney
See the works of: Walter Mignolo, Enrique Dussel, Maria Lugones, Sylvia Tamale, and Anibal Quijano
Some sources include:
Packard, R.M., 2016. A history of global health: interventions into the lives of other peoples. JHU Press. Baltimore, MD.
White, Alexandre IR. 2018. Epidemic orientalism: Social construction and the global management of infectious disease. Boston University.
Birn, A.E., 2009. The stages of international (global) health: histories of success or successes of history?. Global Public Health, 4(1), pp.50-68.
These include:
Bhakuni, H. and Abimbola, S., 2021. Epistemic injustice in academic global health. The Lancet Global Health, 9(10), pp.e1465-e1470.
Naidu, T., 2021. Says who? Northern ventriloquism, or epistemic disobedience in global health scholarship. The Lancet Global Health, 9(9), pp.e1332-e1335.
There will certainly be a future blog post on this topic.
Read Sam’s blogpost, please: http://samdubal.blogspot.com/2012/05/renouncing-paul-farmer-desperate-plea.html
Cover Painting: Paul Signac, View of the Port of Marseilles. Or, a reflection on the imperial staging ground of the French Empire.
Send it to me baby mavril893@gmail.com