Talk:Slavery in the colonial history of the United States

Legal Status
From the article, "The first Africans to be brought to North America landed in Virginia in 1619. Whether they were outright slaves or other kinds of unfree laborers, such as indentured servants, is unclear." I believe it was actually clear. I recall watching a PBS show on this several years ago, but I need to search for better references than my own memory. Indentured servants had a distinct legal status in the American colonies. Recalling from history class (I was mostly raised in Virginia and nearly every year we went to Jamestown on field trips), it was not abnormal for "patrons" of indentured servants to sue the servants for various things that would extend the servitude of those servants, possibly for as long as life. There was one such case, I believe that the African was actually suing his "patron", but the magistrate, for one reason or other, ruled that the African was property of the "patron" and did not have legal basis to sue. Based on this legal precedent, the institution was transformed from servitude to slavery.

In addition, I think it should be researched and included in this article regarding what had transpired with the Germans in colonial Pennsylvania. Asacan 03:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the whole article has to be re-written. There is not enough emphasis on slavery in the North. My ancestors were primarily puritans who came over from England before 1650 and settled in CT, MA and NH. I learned that many of them were slave owners, to my shock and horror. In fact one of my ancestors supposedly "brought the first negro" to the MA Bay Colony. I have seen copies of declarations of manumissions online signed by ancestors as well as references to slaves passing in wills. Horrible stuff to read. FrancisDane (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

How many slaves?
About how many slaves were there in america in the early 1800's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.55.121 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * See article on Slavery in the United States, as this was after the US was established.Parkwells (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Photo
Why is the 19c photograph of a 19c slave on the "Slavery in Colonial America" page? It would fit better on the "History of Slavery in the United States" page. Drfryer 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath
What were the effects of slavery after it was over, in numbers? Marcher Lord 20:41 November 26, 2006 (UTC)


 * A LOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.63.29 (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina (especially Charleston) Jews and the African Slave Trade
I'm in the process of looking in to this, but MUCH more research needs to be done about the VERY prominent role that these Charleston Jews played in the African slave trade, the slave trade which was overwhelmingly centered in the city of Charleston in North America (especially after The North became increasingly abolitionist-oriented) until about 1807, when the slave trade was outlawed (though it certainly continued, albeit quietly).

Also, South Carolina eventually had more African slaves living in the state than non-slaves (as Wikipedia says: "For most of its history, black slaves made up a majority of South Carolina's population.") and the slave owners constantly feared a large slave-uprising or insurrection; indeed, even in modern times African-Americans are about 1/3 the population of the state of South Carolina, possibly a bit more.

It seems that wherever there was a very early North or South American synagogue or large Jewish presence you also find a prominent slave market, both in North and South America (along with the Caribbean and North Africa). All evidence points to the fact that it was a very large role that Jews played -- not to mention the fact that many of these Sephardic Jews hailed from the Netherlands, and everyone knows that the Dutch played a huge part in the African slave trade (History of the Jews in the Netherlands), and that they had been recently expelled from Spain and Portugal (Alhambra decree), but the crypto-Jews remained -- Spain and Portugal were both THE dominant shipping powers around this time. The oldest synagogue in North or South America was established in 1636 (the Kahal Zur synagogue in the Dutch capital of Recife, Brazil). Eventually Brazil had more African slaves than any other place on Earth. There were also many Sephardic Jews living in North Africa (a traditional Sephardi area) which served as a jumping off point where the slaves were gathered (see Triangular trade) by both local Arabs and these Sephardi Jew collaborators and then shipped to North or South America.

There was also an amazingly large slave market in Newport, Rhode Island, which is the site of the oldest synagogue in North America (Touro Synagogue); check out these stats: "As early as 1708 African slaves outnumbered indentured servants in Rhode Island eight to one. In fact, between 1705 and 1805, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 1,000 slaving voyages to West Africa and carried over 100,000 slaves back to America.  More slave ships would leave Colonial Newport than any other American port of that time.  By 1770, one out of every three Newport families owned at least one slave".

Does anyone have any reliable links or book recommendations so that we can write a section about this on the page? I've found many but am looking for more. Thank you. --Pseudothyrum 02:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe your search should start with Mein Kampf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.1.255 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure you can infer that the Jews were overly involved in the slave trade by the fact that there were synagogues at major slave trade centers. I don't know about Charleston, but in Rhode Island one of the major slave traders was the Brown family, who established Brown University. Stephen Hopkins, one of the RI signers of the Dec of Independence was a Rhode Islander who owned slaves and was thrown out of the Society of Friends as a result. A lot more research needs to be done on this article, but I wouldn't venture down the Jews as slavetraders route without a LOT more research. FrancisDane (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopkins outlawed slave trade in Rhode Island in 1774...before he signed the DoI. He didn't outlaw ownership yet, which occurred in 1784. He passed one of the first anti-slavery law in US history. All this info is on his wiki and sourced. The Society of Friends didn't outlaw slavery until 1807 so anyone claiming that a Hopkin's was kicked out of the Quakers for this reason is lying.
 * Also, the Brown family made very little from slave trade since the heads of the family were some of the first abolitionists in the country. Once again sourced and already in wiki. Only one member of the family was pro-slavery, out of 4 members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.71 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It was much more substantial than you suggest. Brown University has conducted a major study of its connections to and dependence on slavery as supporting its founding and growth. Other studies have also shown the importance of the slave trade to New England wealth, as its ships were involved in the slave trade as part of the Triangle Trade, mostly transporting slaves to the Caribbean and southern colonies, and sugar and other goods to England and the colonies.Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Charleston was the major city in South Carolina, as a port that shipped out rice, sugar and cotton commodity crops. This is why it was a major slave market; it was at the center of an area that demanded slave labor to support its plantation agricultural economy.Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Indentured Servitude – Deletion of a sentence
I deleted the first sentence “British colonists were cruel with the most of the slaves in Latin America, West Africa, and medieval Europe.” Because a) It implies that “British colonists” were cruel to slaves in Latin America etc… b) It has nothing to do with the next sentence “Some Historians, notably Edmund……” and c) The early colonies & colonists were English. Britain, as political entity only came into existence with the1707 “Act of Union” nearly a hundred years after the founding of most of the colonies. I suspect that this sentence is a hangover from an earlier version of this article.Jalipa 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Focus of article on the US
Another editor highlighted the fact that this article is primarily about slavery in the American colonies that became the United States. That may or may not be appropriate. This article is listed as the "main article" under Slavery in the United States. Maybe this article should be renamed Slavery in the Thirteen Colonies?

Otherwise, it should be broadened to incorporate the very different history of slavery elsewhere in the Americas. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

450,000 slaves
Saw Dr. Gates talking about his tv special tracing the genetic background of African Americans. He stated only about 450,000 slaves came from Africa to the British colonies and the US. About 75% were imported before 1776.

Also Henry Adams in his history of US from 1800-1816 wrote that one reason for small number of slaves in New England was because of the climate; they died in large numbers from pulmonary diseases. I am not knowledgeable enough to know how reliable either fact is - but someone who is may find it worth while adding them to this article. Nitpyck (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is contradicted on this Smithsonian webpage relating slavery in North America.
 * https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/misguided-focus-1619-beginning-slavery-us-damages-our-understanding-american-history-180964873/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:150:2200:64BD:9B5D:D2C0:641 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Title
Isn't the title of this article an anachronism? There was no United States until after the colonial period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.220.145 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Slavery in the Thirteen Colonies would be a much better title.Harrypotter (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is no confusion about what the expression "colonial United States" refers to.  The general article on this time period is titled Colonial history of the United States and this slavery article title is perfectly consistent with that article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

America: Past and Present as a source
I would caution using the textbook "America: Past and Present" as a source. One of the classes I am currently taking uses "APP" as its primary text. Let me tell you, this thing is biased, but it's not an overt bias. The authors don't outright state their opinions, but the words they use generally promote their viewpoint. They don't necessarily attack certain groups through their writing, but there are subtle things. I'm not saying this article shouldn't cite "APP", but the bits cited should be looked through carefully. The text is probably only useful for cold, hard facts. As far as I can tell it doesn't skew the facts. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indentured servitude another view
Slavery in Britain and Ireland casts a different light upon the use of the term "indentured servant" in this article. The current article makes it sound like it was solely a contractual arrangement akin to old time apprenticeships. According to the referenced article cited above, it was far more than that. Indentured servants also included a great number of prisoners and people on their last leg basically forced into an indentured servitude situation and brought over to America. The British sent many lower class people over from the rest of the "UK". I think this fact is vastly underplayed in this article. Black slavery certainly being prominant, but the original white slaves should be brought into a more accurate context with the referenced article cited above. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE

Quotes removed
These quotes, in my opinion, are not specific enough for the article's topic, American colonial slavery.

Fernand Braudel on American slavery Fernand Braudel has written:
 * Such hardships are not to be laid at the door simply of the planters, the mine-owners, the moneylending merchants of the Consulado in Mexico City or elsewhere, the harsh officials of the Spanish crown, the sugar- and tobacco-dealers, the slave-traders, or the grasping captains of trading vessels.... they were essentially middlemen, agents for other people.... In reality the root of the evil lay back across the Atlantic, in Madrid, Seville, Cadiz, Lisbon, Bordeaux, Nantes or Genoa, without question in Bristol, and in later years Liverpool, London and Amsterdam. (Braudel, 1984, p. 393).

Braudel quotes Karl Marx: ""The veiled slavery of the wage-workers in Europe needed, for its pedestal, slavery pure and simple in the New World." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmguy777 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why only talk about African
I tried to add that a massive number of slaves were also Irish, close to 500k worth of them before 1700. A mod keeps deleting my post and I believe this is extremely biased. Can someone who is a regular contributor please add this information since it is extremely racist/biased that the Irish are not mentioned at all? I have never posted to Wiki before today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.71 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Lau-t.html
 * "“White Cargo” is meticulously sourced and footnoted — which is wise, given its contentious material"


 * In this section the article says that the main geographical area of Irish enslavement was the Caribbean, though there were in fact Irish enslaved in colonial America. And to some degree this hinges on the interpretation of slavery vs. indentured servants. So I wonder if mainstream historians have changed their views on this issue afte "White Cargo" was published. That is why I asked for more references. O.Koslowski (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * the article is about slavery, which has a carefully defined legal status that did not apply to the Irish who were indentured for a fixed term. As Bryan Giemza notes, "White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America (2007), is careful not to conflate the history of indenture with African slavery." [Bryan Giemza,  Southern Cultures Spring 2012 p 39] Rjensen (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Irish indentured were NOT given a fixed term, ever. Existing documents have proved that. The first Africans brought to the US also had indentured status because that was the only legal to have slaves. When the Spanish brought them from they were Baptized, which was why they were called Indentured servants. Why don't both of you actually learn history instead of what you are told to learn? Oliver Cromwell did not classify a single Irishman as an indentured servant. The ONLY Irish indentured servants were the ones that came here on their own because of the famine caused by Cromwell, the other 300,000 Irish that were brought here were brought in chains.

So you guys are both saying that all the historians who vetted the history book above are lying? The documents that are in the book are forgeries? Cromwell's own words are fake? The Royal historian of England is lying also? Stanford University is lying too?

Who can I talk to since neither of are willing to help update this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.71 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The section on "indentured servitude" could use work, but your comments seem to have more than a little anachronism. In the 17th century, "rights" were quite limited for most British people - women, wives, children, the poor, and lower classes (eg, apprentices, agricultural workers, laborers), did not ever enjoy freedom the way it's understood today, and they were often defined as someone's property. Also as noted, the book you rely on also talks about more than just the Irish and more than just the colonies that are the subject of this article, so your focus also seems off. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Slavery in the colonial United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100926142019/http://www.africanaonline.com:80/2010/08/introduction-american-slavery/ to http://www.africanaonline.com/2010/08/introduction-american-slavery/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Spain
you removed everything about Spain but given that Colonial United States covers all powers that covered the present US with colonies (and Spain esp. in Fla and the Carolina fits). Your deletion seems wrong, although shortening it might be a real plus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * the article is about the USA not Spain--the deleted info had zero impact on US history, so it's just filler that diverts readers away from the actual story. People who are really interested in Spanish  policy will not be looking at this article, I suggest.  Rjensen (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * About the USA? Surely not, it's about before the USA. The article is about slavery, including the European colonial administrations with respect to slavery in what became the US and Spain was part of that.   I do take back, though, that everything about Spain was removed but in order to have an encyclopedic presentation, we should have a brief summary re Spain's colonies in that section as we do British, French, and Dutch. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * the Spanish influence re slavery had disappeared by the time the areas involved became part of the USA. Including them here falsely promotes the idea among readers that they did have a continuity. By contrast French (& Spanish) slavery in Louisiana (pre 1803) did have a major continuity and is properly included. Rjensen (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No. To the extent there was a break in continuity -- which is hardly as categorical as you posit, since the entire Atlantic slave system is very much tied up with all of this throughout -- the text would discuss any 'break.' But it remains that the Colonial United States history cannot excise the Spanish, even in slavery, and far from false, that's completing the information for the reader. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * the tinySpanish colony lasted a few months and was abandoned in 1526--a century before the English arrived to found South Carolina...so what's the evidence for continuity? or for importance? Rjensen (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Importance? The earliest or one of the earliest African slave experiences in the colonial period is important to the topic.  As for continuity, if by that you mean slave experience in the colonies, then yes it has continuity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not good enough--the Indians had slavery for centuries before that. there was zero continuity & the episode was unknown in colonial South Carolina & had zero influence (unlike Louisiana).  Rjensen (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Highly irrelevant. The Indians did not have pre-Columbian African slavery unlike their Columbian era colonial successors, and African slavery is the focus of this subject. And none of your arguments even approach having any validity with respect to Fla., where slavery (since you put such odd emphasis for actual history on some mere unbroken line) from Spanish to British to American. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

---This article incorrectly states that slaves first arrived in North America in 1619. The Spanish had settlements in 1526 in South Carolina and they brought slaves with them. Prior to that, the Portuguese, Spanish, English, French, Dutch and others brought slaves in the early 1500's. This is the Smithsonian's webpage with more details: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtwhitaker (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * false: it says The first Africans to be brought to British North America landed in Virginia in 1619. They arrived on a Dutch ship that had captured them from the Spanish. We have several articles which cover the Spanish colonies, and that is where users will look for the story. Rjensen (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearing up Common Misconceptions
There are several common misconceptions that MUST be addressed when discussing this topic due to ideological subversion.

1) Why no mention of freedman or free Americans of African descent? Some of them participated in Americas founding fighting the British in exchange for their freedom.  Some people believe all blacks were enslaved in the United States.  This wasn't even true before its founding.

2) Why is there nothing in here about American abolitionists from Massachusetts and other northern states? They helped found the Republican party.  And what about Lincoln's 13th amendment which he delayed negotiating the end of the civil war against popular opinion to achieve.  All you hear about were the perpetrators, but never the heroes who risked their lives and in Lincoln's case died ridding America of this original sin born out of compromise in our struggle against British colonialism.  America helped prove colonialism was doomed.

3) America didn't invent slavery. Slavery has existed since the dawn of man when one tribe defeated another.  In prehistoric times, it was common for ALL MEN to be killed after the defeat of a conquered tribe.  Child bearing women and toddlers in some cultures were made slaves.  Slave markets existed in ancient Rome and Muslim controlled parts of Africa like Sudan.  The Barbary Pirates took white slaves as did the Vikings and Romans.  The word slavic shares the same root.  African slaves were sold not just in America but as far away as Polynesia by Muslim slave traders.  Slavery is a human shame, not an American one.

4) Although first England than the United States and eventually the entire western world abolished slavery and indentured servitude, it still exists today. Literally 10s of millions of slaves still exist today in Africa and the Middle East.  Human trafficking is still a big problem in the United States today with dozens of missing kids recently found.  Some places like China have work camps for the Uighars, who are Chinese Muslims. Obsessing about racially enforced African slavery in America helps none of these people.  If you really hate slavery, you should fight it now - not rehash America's civil war in which as many as 750,000 Americans North and South including African Americans from Massachusetts gave their lives.  What right do people who immigrated to this country in the 20th century or later have to tear down the Lincoln statue in Lincoln Square in Boston.  It was paid for by African American veterans of the Civil War. Leave the legacy and history of the people who built and worked to perfect this country alone and fight present oppressions instead. Otherwise, you are just opening up old wounds and dividing and conquering your own country. That helps no one. No country is perfect because no human being is perfect including you.

And before you accuse me of racism, you should know that I have slave ancestry on my mother's side, not in the United States, but the Caribbean. Stop stealing my identity and using it against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praetorex (talk • contribs) 06:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , You seem to be at the wrong article, this article is about slavery in the colonial period. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Indentured servants section uncited
This section skimps on cites as well as facts. I know it will need to be highly summarized with there being a dedicated Indentured servitude in British America page, but here is some information from historians to help build a better section.

Historian Lerone Bennett Jr. wrote an article on "White Servitude in America" that "white servitude was the historic foundation upon which the system of black slavery was constructed"  Professor Frank Tracy Carlton  notes that there were several distinct groups of indentured servants, not just those who were "free-willers" (the only ones mentioned currently in the article). Many were the subject of being kidnapped, and kidnapping became so prevalent in England that the kidnappers were given a name "spirits" for 'spiriting people away' across the sea. (Professor Bennett also mentions kidnappers/"spirits") Another large group were criminals that Britain wanted to get rid of. Historian Marcus Jernegan agrees, citing groups such as people with contracts, those kidnapped by spirits, and criminals. Historian Charles McLean Andrews notes that criminals forced into indentured servitude were common enough to be given the colloquial name "seven year passengers" and is particularly notable after the year 1717, which is the year that the Transportation Act 1717 was passed. An article in Johns Hopkins University Historical Studies gives more detail of who these "seven year passengers" were.

There are slave narratives which are also relevant to this section. Peter Williamson (memoirist) wrote in his narrative about how he was spirited away at a very young age and sold into slavery in: French and Indian Cruelty, exemplified in the Life and various Vicissitudes of Fortune of Peter Williamson, who was carried off from Aberdeen in his Infancy and sold as a slave in Pennsylvania, and Ellen Craft's popular and influential narrative Running a Thousand Miles for Freedom; Or, The Escape of William and Ellen Craft from Slavery states this: (page 2 ) It may be remembered that slavery in America is not at all confined to persons of any particular complexion; there are a very large number of slaves as white as any one; but as the evidence of a slave is not admitted in court against a free white person, it is almost impossible for a white child, after having been kidnapped and sold into or reduced to slavery, in a part of the country where it is not known (as often is the case), ever to recover its freedom.

I have myself conversed with several slaves who told me that their parents were white and free; but that they were stolen away from them and sold when quite young. As they could not tell their address, and also as the parents did not know what had become of their lost and dear little ones, of course all traces of each other were gone.

This word history website points out that the word 'kidnap' is rooted in the force-able selling of young children from England into indentured servitude came about because of spiriting. This 1901 English Dictionary contains the following definition: (first column on the left of page 691) "Originally, to steal or carry off (children or others) in order to provide servants or labourers for the American plantations; hence, in general use, to steal (a child), to carry off(a person) by illegal force."

The section makes indentured servitude sound almost like a laudable coming of age hollywood movie and that's highly misleading considering how brutal it really was for most of the people actually involved or victimized by it. Progressingamerica (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Indentured servitude was not agricultural chattel slavery in any way, shape, or form, and the basis for agricultural chattel slavery in the Atlantic world was—wait for it—slavery, which was nothing new; Europeans began enslaving indigneous people immediate everywhere they showed up during the Age of Sail. In Spanish-dominated settler societies, for example, including Spanish colonies conquered by the United States, some indigenous slaves were referred to as genízaro—a word derived from the Turkish janissary/yeñiçeri, a class of troops made of formerly-Christian child slaves raised as soldiers from birth.Janissaries were probably one model for The Unsullied slave army in Game of Thrones... notably not portrayed as what we might call, from a modern viewpoint, Caucasians enslaved by Middle Eastern and Central Asian people when the books were made into a TV series though, undoubtedly a wise choice on their part.Ellen Craft in the above passage is talking about the one-drop rule and being a victim of white supremacy even though her physical appearance allowed her to pose as her husband's slave owner during their escape from the United States; nothing to do at all with indentured servitude. The "indenture" in "indentured" refers to the fact that the relationship was literally governed by a contract which could be adjudicated in court because an indentured person had the rights of a free person.Indentured servants could certainly be mistreated, but that had been a crime since around the 13th century—this article is about how it was legal to beat, murder, or work to death slaves, and otherwise treat them as a piece of property and as someone who had no access to courts (as formally ruled by SCOTUS in Dred Scott v. Sandford), not crimes like kidnapping children or for another example stuff like the Knight−Berry−DeJesus kidnappings, which could much more legitimately be called slavery than indentured servants with contracts... but again, this article is about the societal institution of slavery as a means of obtaining free labor in the colonial history of the United States. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 22:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"Native Americans" missing indigenous methodologies
Responsible scholarship incorporates othered knowledge not only as information but also method: the first two citations appearing here to justify what is a colonial discussion of non-European civilization do not derive their authority from 'lived experience.' Nikamavrody (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)