Indigenizing Salvation | Andrea Smith

Indigenizing Salvation | Andrea Smith


The material that you’re about to listen to and
engage with came from our 2017 missiology lectures, when myself, along with my colleague,
Johnny Ramirez Johnson, said we need to do this next 2017 Missiology
Lectures on this topic of race, theology, and mission. And we invited Dr. Love Sechrest to
engage with us in that process. We wanted to explore the challenging
questions regarding racism and ethnocentrism and xenophobia and
all of those issues from the perspective of world Christianity with regard to how
these realities have existed in many parts of the world and also as part of the colonial mission endeavors. It is fascinating to think that the realities
we were talking about are not the experiences of one individual or even one society. We’re talking about whiteness as a way
of defining the world. And the conference and the conference
presenters addressed time and again this epistemology; this way of making meaning. It has also
been described as colonization and post colonization. The question is not about guilt; it’s about
engagement; it’s about what are we going to do with what we have inherited.
So the fact that we’re having a conversation should not point a finger
at you as a listener or viewer. But these are hard conversations the
conversation about race is one that has been deferred for so long and so often over and over again.
As soon as we get close to having a meaningful conversation about race we
recoil from the pain of it. And so in our lectures there you’ll see some of that
pain emerge; you’ll see some people who have long experienced racism
express and declare and name experiences that they have had that have been deeply
formative, de-formative even. So this conversation is not a pretty one,
but we’re having it. As observers, as listeners you will be
engaging, and we invite you to invite the Holy Spirit. The three of us pray a lot about this series.
We humbly submitted it to God and pleaded for God’s mercy to lead us.
We are feeble and combined we are imperfect and we have prayed that
the Lord will fill the gaps. And the conversation is only a starter;
it is in your hands; it is in your community; it is in your family and most importantly,
it is on your knees. So, today I offer these comments kind
of in the spirit of humility. I tend to have a slight tendency
to be strongly opinionated. But I don’t presume anyone
will actually agree with me. And I feel like this is work we have
to collectively think together. My approach is, revolution
through trial and error. If any of us actually knew how to end
global oppression we would have done it by now. So let’s just admit we don’t know
what we’re talking about. But we’re gonna kind of work it out together, and through our mistakes come up with something different. So, if we look at the history of
Indigenous people specifically. We can see that the history of Missionization is simultaneously the history of genocide. Native peoples were never to be saved. Because only people can be saved, and
Indigenous peoples never counted as people. Essentially, the Missionization project was itself a racial project; to divide the human from the non human. And we can see this very clearly here, in the state of California, which had outright policies of extermination. There was no more places to remove Native peoples
too, so they simply had to disappear. This was a declaration from the Mariposa County’s Sheriff in 1850; He declared quote, “Whereas the Indian has openly made war on the
miners and against all kinds of property.” “Without their being in any way able to deliver the malefactors to justice; I pronounce the Indian outlawed.” “Consequently everyone is permitted to kill the Indians he encounters, anywhere in the county of Mariposa, on the sole condition of burying them and
letting the sheriff know where and how.” In addition, the state of California authorized payments to volunteers specifically to kill Native peoples. And this is not just true in California. If we look at George Tinkers important
work he notes that; Puritans never even actually tried to convert Native peoples unless it was politically expedient. Because they didn’t see them as people
that could actually be saved. In fact, they were always
described as Biblical Canaanites. Quote, “The human behavior of the Governor at Pittsburgh greatly incensed those people.” “Who according to the account given, in the former part of this history, represented the Indians as Canaanites.” “Who without mercy, ought to be destroyed from the
face of the earth, and considered America
as the land and promise given to Christians.” And so, Native peoples are categorically
defined as, unable to be Christian. As Canaanites, Native peoples had a
one-way destination to destruction. That would allow for the new Israel of
Whiteness; That would then later become,
The United States. So, in looking at kind of this picture, I think it may be helpful to discuss how we’re defining terms. Like we throw around terms like,
“racism” and “white supremacy”; but we don’t necessarily
mean the same thing by it. Nowadays, white supremacy is often
connoted to mean, “Very bad white people.” Those extreme things that the alt-right
does or something like this. But to me, I see white
supremacy is primarily a logic right? It’s a system of thought
that implicates all of us. To quote Fred Moulton, “White supremacy is not simply the belief in the superiority of white people.” “White supremacy structures belief itself.” That is, we all see the world
through the lens of white supremacy. And essentially, the project of white supremacy is to divide the human from the nonhuman. Or to quote Ruth Wilson Gilmore; “Racism specifically is the state sanction or extra legal production and exploitation of group differentiated vulnerability to premature death.” So this gets us a little bit out of the
category of race as a noun. Right, a specific groups of people that have identifiable racial categories that we’re used to. And seeing it more as a verb; That can implicate people differently at different
times and different kind of locations. To quote for instance, Lewis Gordon he states; “There would be whiteness without Europe and blackness without Africa.” And it’s a logic that can operate temperature across
different kinds of regimes in different ways. But nevertheless, it’s about fundamentally
dividing the human from the nonhuman. And so I say this in this kind of framework because, Therefore we start to see that any white supremacy is a common project that we all have. And it gets us a little bit out of the
ally industrial complex right? This is the idea that some
people are allies. I don’t know what that means. I’m gonna cheer you on while you
end white supremacy, good job right? No, like white supremacy is overall framework that we equally need to participate in dismantling. Because it’s screwing all of us over right? It’s killing all of us eventually. So in that sense, that we see it as kind of a common project that we all need to partake in. And that we will all benefit
from if we are able to end it. And also, I say this because; Native peoples and racialized people generally speak; Are often put in what I call kind of this mode of, ethnographic entrapment. Like we’re supposed to confess our cool, interesting and spiritual ways to people and so you’ll like us better right? This is based again on the racialized logic where
it is the white subject that can know and theorize. But the colonized and racialized subject can only be known and theorized about. So I look at Native peoples as a lens by which we can see theories and ideas that are instructive. Not just for Native peoples, but actually for everybody. So it’s in that kind of spirit I want to kind of
explore the logics of settler colonialism. To see how they’ve not just impacted Native people, but how they structure the world for everyone. And thus, show our investment in dismantling these logics of settler colonialism. So if we look at racialization then, as fundamentally about the divide between the human and the nonhuman; That only makes sense, if there
is a big divide between the two. Like we have to make the human and the
nonhuman radically different; in order to separate some
people’s as not human. And this is what the
logic of colonialism does. It’s not just about stealing land, but it’s about creating something called land that can then be stolen. So if we look at Indigenous kind of cosmologies; there wasn’t a radical difference
between humans and nonhumans. We understood we were related to all peoples,
all creation, in all things. We knew who we were, because of our
connections with the rest of creation. So what does colonization do? It truncates all of these complex relationships
and calls it something called, land. And then land can then become a commodity that you can buy and sell and steal. This then, has the implications for liberation. Because if you go to the US Court System the only thing you can say that’s legible is, “Hey, that’s not your land it’s our land.” You can’t say,
“Well why is the land anybody’s at all?” “Why should the land be owned and
controlled by one group of people?” “Why should anybody have
exclusivist control over it?” So to quote, Patricia Monture-Angus she states; “Although Aboriginal peoples maintained
a close relationship with the land, “It is not about control of the land.” “Earth is mother and she nurtures us all.” It is the human race that is dependent on the earth and not vice versa.” “Sovereignty when defined as
my right to be responsible; Requires a relationship with territory and not a relationship based on control of that territory.” “What must be understood then, is that the Aboriginal request to have our sovereignty respected; is really a request to be responsible.” “I don’t know of anywhere else in history where a group of people have had to fight so hard, just to be responsible.” Well, to have a different relationship to land, requires that we have to have a fundamentally
different understanding of the self. The Western self knows who it is,
because it’s not other people’s. Like I know who I am
because I am not you. Well, therefore, the nation that you’re going to create based on it is going to be over and against other nations. You’re gonna be America first. You’re going to have to have strict borders. We have to protect ourselves
at the expense of other nations. But if I know who I am, not because I’m not you,
but because of you. Right, I know who I am because
of my relationships with you. The sense of nationhood I created will
be inclusive rather than exclusive. It will not be sharply bounded. The welfare of my nation depends upon
the welfare of other nations. I see that all of our nations are interconnected. And this was actually brought up at the
World Social Forum in 2008. With the Indigenous peoples in Latin America put forth kind of a consensus statement. They said that the number one question they want to put on the table is, the question of the nation-state. Essentially they were separating the
idea of a nation from a nation-state. They said, “nation-states haven’t worked for the last 500 years so we don’t think it’s gonna start working now.” And they said our goal is,
“not to tell everyone else to go home.” Whatever that means. They said, “you’re all welcome here,
but you have to be different.” Essentially you have to indigenize yourself. You have to see yourself as fundamentally connected with all peoples and all of creation. So that we can build real democracy where we actually have an active role in building the world that we need to be. And it was very striking for me as
some of the people’s there were saying: “You know we are facing
genocide in a generation.” “Our lands are being cleared for factory farming
and we may disappear in a generation.” But they said, “we’re not here just to
save ourselves, we’re here to save the world.” “Because if we don’t live differently, we will not be able to have a system in
place that is sustainable over the long term.” So they were essentially saying
decolonization is an epistemological project. That we have to understand ourselves
in a radically different way. Now this can seem a little new agey right? Is that our post Avatar times? This could be misunderstood to be,
“Paint yourself blue and now you’ll be Indigenous.” But, this is not what they
were calling for right? They were calling for kind of a radical deconstruction of what we consider the human to be. To create something different. That could see itself in connection
with all of other creation. And I think it’s also important to stress
here that, and they made this connection that; When we look at the history of colonization. That we must always have an
integrated gender analysis; with how racism and colonization’s are
also gendered projects. Because if we look at for instance the
history of Indian massacres. We can see that colonists didn’t just
kill native peoples. But they were always accompanied by
rape and sexual mutilation. If you just need to kill people why do this? But yet, this is part of the history. I’ll just give a couple of quotes: “Two of the best looking of the squaws
were lying in such a position, and from the appearance of the
organ’s and their wounds, there can be no doubt that they were
first ravaged and then shot dead.” “Nearly all of the dead were mutilated.” Here’s another one; “One woman big with child rushed in
the church clasping the altar, and crying for mercy for herself an unborn babe.” “She was followed and fell, pierced
with a dozen lances.” “The child was torn alive from the yet
palpitating body of its mother.” “First plunged into the holy water to be baptized, and immediately its brains were dashed out against the wall.” Now you have to ask, how can this be
done in the name of Christianity right? But it’s done to people who are not human. That’s how it can be done. But secondly, you can see that sexual violence is a critical strategy of colonialism right? The goal was to render Native bodies inherently rap-able and by extension their lands inherently invade-able. And their resources inherently extractable. The goal is not just to kill Native peoples,
but to kill their sense of even being a people. In addition, patriarchy is a critical strategy for naturalizing colonialism and racial domination. That is, prior to colonization most
Native committees were not patriarchal. And we’re generally not
even socially hierarchical. But you will only accept on the nation
when it seems natural and evitable. Right, if you have another option you
will choose that other option. And in fact, many European women
we’re noting they could get a better deal elsewhere. So this poses a crisis to secure the
legitimacy of European hierarchies. The alternatives had to be destroyed. In addition, colonists note: “We will never be able to dominate Native peoples essentially until, Native men start treating Native women the way European men treat European women.” So this is why Native children had to be taken to boarding school and taught to be patriarchal. So that they would accept
colonial domination. Essentially, patriarchy is a logic that
naturalizes other forms of social hierarchy. Just as men are supposed to naturally
rule women on the basis of biology. So too, should the colonial elites
naturally rule everyone else. Thus, what we see here is, when it
was important to destroy Native nations; not just to destroy Native peoples, and
getting access to resources and land. But it was necessary to secure the domination within European society. The alternative that there could be for
other Europeans, had to be destroyed. Its own legitimacy became in question. So thus, I think it’s important
to see that we can no longer say — “Hey, we’ll deal with gender
some other time.” Right, if we’re not serious about ending
sexism; we’re not serious about ending racism. And we should just go home
and watch TV instead. So, to look specifically at how the
Native peoples have been rendered nonhuman. We can look to the Johnson
versus McIntosh case. And I should mention, that it’s important to stress, that this Supreme Court decision has never been overturned. This governing document that says, “Native peoples are not human”, is still the law of the land. It’s never been actually questioned; it
still undergirds all of Indian law today. Anyway, what the doctrine
of discovery states is that — “Native peoples, because they are not fully peoples, cannot discover, they can only be discovered.” “And because they cannot discover,
they cannot own title to land.” “They can stay on the land, but they
can only sell land to the nation that discovers them.” Well, what is it that makes Native
peoples not human? It’s their inability to work. So here’s from the case, “The tribes of Indians inhabiting the country where fierce savages whose occupation was war.” “And who’s subsistence was drawn
chiefly from the forest.” “To leave them in possession of their
country was to leave the country a wilderness.” Thus, because Native peoples cannot
work, they can never be human. And this is what we have particularly
in our capitalist system. What makes you human
is your ability to work. Those who categorically are defined
as unable to work do not count. We see it In legal jurisprudence. Native peoples are often described as having a legal status as being, “under disability.” And had the same status as people
with disabilities. And notably, people with disabilities are also categorically defined as non workers. So you can pay people with disabilities sub minimum wages because legally what they do is not called work. And when Native peoples tried to
organize unions against Goodwill they lost. Because the court said,
“You are not working.” Well, to work, is what
makes you human. And also, why do we go to school? You go to school to get a job. Well this is how we can see that the origins of the school to Prison Pipeline actually started in 1492. Because if you cannot work,
school is not for you. To illustrate this, I have a nephew
who has quadriplegia. He started school four years
ago at UC Riverside. And he was instructed to go to the Department of Rehabilitation to see if he could get some resources. So when he went there they saw him, they saw that he had quadriplegia and that he couldn’t really move. And the worker said, “You know it
looks to me like you will never be able to work.” “So hence, an education would be wasted on you.” But we can also look at the statistics. The suspension and expulsion rates for Black and Native students with disabilities is exponential. One in three, Native and black students with a disability, in this country will be suspended or expelled. And in Riverside County in particular, the suspension rate for Native students with a disability is 100%. Because again,
school is not for them. Education is only for
those who can work. But this is something we’ve
internalized in our life. It doesn’t just impact native peoples. It impacts all of us, because we see
ourselves as human through our work. Let’s just look at the academic
industrial complex in particular, for instance. How do you know you’re a good student? Because you work all the time. You’re going to stay up all night, cramming for these exams, making yourselves miserable. Have to stay in classes that last for
like five million hours, and uncomfortable chairs. You’re unable to eat because you’re
supposed to work work work. If you don’t work you’re a lazy
student right? You’re a bad student. If you’re a professor, you have to tell everybody how you worked, worked, work; where you never went to a movie. Because then you’re not serious about your
academic career, and we shouldn’t tenure you. But what if we were to say,
“Well, wait a minute.” “Like what are we learning to accept here?” Like, we’re learning to accept to be miserable in school so we will then accept a miserable job later right? And what if you were to say,
“Well maybe that lazy student is smart.” Like maybe the lazy student is saying, “I don’t really want to stay up all night cuz I’m not gonna get enough sleep.” And maybe I need to skip this class
because I’m hungry. Like maybe I actually have a body
that needs to be cared for. If we put our body back into the situation. And we saw we had inherent
worth besides our work. Maybe we would accept
different conditions in society. Maybe we would say,
“I’m not going to accept this brutal work situation.” This is not a humane
way we need to live. We need to restructure our society so that our life, our value doesn’t come through work. We know that we have
inherent value of itself. And we can see this; Jesus
completely personified this right. Jesus was always going to parties
and people thought he was lazy and he was like, “Chill”. So we even see this in Matthew 6. “Look at the birds of the air they do not
sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.” “And why do you worry about clothes?” “The other flowers of the field grow.” “They do not labor or spin.” “Yet, I tell you that not even Solomon in all
his splendor was dressed like one of these. Again the principle here is that there’s
value beyond productivity. There’s inherent value that’s seen as
part of creation. You don’t have to earn it
through your work. And so consequently again we see
these settler logics impact all of us. Like what would it mean to start to
value each other? Even in organizing. Like you know you’re a good organizer
because you killed yourself to do this project. And then we wonder why nobody wants to join our movements when we’re so miserable all the time. Like what would it mean instead to
create a society, to create a vision of the world, we’re actually trying to create? What if we made the revolution fun? Like made it so much fun that people
couldn’t wait to join. And this is why I think people
often don’t join. Because they think, they only see
things in terms of loss. Like if we were to end global
oppression; “Will I still get my iPod?” I was in one class where
this was the big question. Okay, I’ll join as long as I still get my iPod. But the reason why this question comes up is because we only can see what we would lose. And we don’t see what we would gain. But this is where churches
could have a pivotal role. We could start to bring; mirror the
world we want to bring. Instead of waiting for the deferred
liberation, let’s live it now. Let’s start creating liberation zones
now so people see what it could look like. They see what they would gain and
then they will want to join. It won’t be a chore. It’ll be something that people would be
getting from as much as that they are giving to. So in any case the other thing I kind of
want to discuss here is; how our different logics of oppression
intersect with each other. That is, I don’t think white supremacy
operates through one logic. I think it operates through multiple logics. When we do racial justice organizing it
tends to be a Venn diagram model. There’s different racialized groups and
where we overlap we have a common oppression. We’ll go fight the power. And as we know if we’ve ever done
people of color organizing; this lasts for all about five seconds
before we hate each other. That’s because the way we think to liberate ourselves is often at the expense of another group. And the reason is, is because we’re
not all oppressed in the same way. Like there’s different logics of oppression and they’re interconnected, but they’re not the same. So I see different logics, which I won’t go into a great length here, and we can discuss later if you want. But I see that we do have kind of a
logic of anti blackness. The way that operates is, that your
goal is not just to aspire to whiteness, but you’re supposed to run
from blackness. And that was what trains us
to stay in this system. Because we think as long as we’re not
at the bottom we’re okay right? We see the logic of genocide
as I’ve just been discussing. It’s a job of some peoples to disappear. That allows for the legitimacy of
colonial control over their lands and resources. And I see another logic of what I
would call, Orientalism. I don’t mean the Orient per se. But in the Edward Saidian sense,
which is to say some peoples are seen as peoples. They’re granted a provisional humanity, but they are seen as permanent threats to the well-being of Empire. And hence, Empire must
always be at war with people. To quote Sora Han
she puts it this way, she says, “The US is not at war.
The US is war.” So in this particular context, I wanted to look at how I see Indigenous genocide, intersecting with the logics of anti-blackness. What we see happening is that Native
peoples were presented with two choices. As either immediate genocide or
deferred genocide. And the way the logics of anti-blackness operate was to train into peoples to desire a deferred genocide. This happened during the 1800s, when there was the battle for what to do about the Indian problem. Nobody was saying, “Maybe we don’t have an Indian problem, maybe we have a colonial problem.” Everybody thought we had
an Indian problem. What do we do to solve it? Some folks said we just need to
exterminate people’s completely. But the so called friends of the Indians
said, “No that’s not very nice and plus it’s too expensive.” So, what we need to do is essentially what Richard Pratt described as, “Save the man by killing the Indian.” “We will get Native peoples to become white, through a number of policies, but particularly boarding schools.” This is where Native children taken from their home at an early age, transported thousands of miles away. Put them in Christian boarding schools where
they were not allowed to speak their languages. Where they routinely physically,
sexually, emotionally abused. And if you look at kind of where does
dysfunctionality come in Native communities. It’s almost always the first generation
that went to boarding school. And the idea here was
Native peoples were prominent. In other words, how can we save Indians? You can’t save Indians
because they’re not human. You must make them human but to
make them human they can no longer be Indian. They have to disappear into
whiteness. So this is how we have to kind of
rethink these logics. Because Native peoples are promised
to proximity to whiteness. But that journey to whiteness,
is a journey to genocide. They’re supposed to disappear into whiteness. This allows whiteness to possess Indigeneity, and hence legitimize its claims to Indigenous lands and resources. So hence, Native peoples can be human but they can only be human once they’re no longer Native. So I would like to, okay so I might
need to talk faster now. Anycase, I do want to stress a little bit
that we’re looking at this historically. But this these logics are alive and well
today particularly in Evangelical land. Like the logics are not really different. So I think I’ve actually read every Evangelical article that mentions Native peoples and it’s not pretty. So let me just give you a few examples. This is Moody magazine, ran an article that said, “Native peoples were quote ‘savages”, this was 1980s. Dick Bernal, of the Jubilee Christian
Center here in California said that, “Native practices are quote a clever
scheme of Satan, to seduce the naive.” And this kind of rhetoric
has genocidal implications. Because many Evangelicals
were involved in supporting: Ríos Montt’s genocidal campaign
against Indigenous peoples in Guatemala. Particularly, Pat Robertson and the
rationale of this campaign was, “The Army doesn’t Massacre Indians, it massacres demons and the Indians are demon-possessed.” “They are communists.” And Pat Robertson’s justification for
supporting this genocide was quote, “These tribes are in an arrested state
of social development.” “They are not less valuable as human
beings because of that.” “But they offer scant wisdom, or learning, or philosophical vision that can be instructive to a society.” “That can feed the entire population of the earth in a single harvest and send spacecraft to the moon.” Well except for our crimes, our wars,
and our frantic pace of life. But we have a superior to the ways of
primitive people, other than a little thing called war. Which life do you think people would
prefer; freedom and enlightened Christian civilization? Or the suffering of subsistence living
and superstition in a jungle? You choose. And here was a joke from New Man magazine, there was a magazine of The Promise Keepers movement. And it said, “After 43 years of working
in the Amazon jungle.” The right reverend Thorton Standish returned to pen a book titled, Traumatic Lessons from the Mission Field.” “I wish someone would have told me that Indigenous peoples is just a fancy term for naked people.” So the idea that Native peoples are
not human is not just a past thing. It’s still in a live framework that very much undergirds Evangelical theology and politics today. So this then brings us to the apocalypse which as we see what’s going on with Trump and all. But what we see here is that, Native peoples cannot be saved under colonial Christian ideologies. But more importantly, decolonization
means that humanity cannot be saved. Humanity is defined through whiteness. Thus, our project will require a
different understanding of humanity altogether. It will require a different world altogether. And this is why I think there’s been a lot of racial backlash that people are confused about. They’re like why don’t you just want to
be nice to other people? But I think actually, people who are
part of this racial backlash — actually understand something that
sometimes more liberals don’t. Which is that it’s not that simple right? Dismantling white supremacy won’t
just be correcting bad attitudes. It won’t just be some new policies. It’ll actually require the deconstruction of everything that we know and know about ourselves in the world. And that’s scary to people. We want to be in a place of comfort
and security and certainty. But ending white supremacy requires
us to go to the place of uncertainty. That we are creating a world that we
don’t even have the vocabulary for. And this is how I think we can then
understand what it means to be born again. Being born again, is a new person in Christ,
it’s not just about new beliefs about Jesus. But it’s a fundamental restructuring of
what and how we believe. It’s a total epistemological and ontological shift . So 2 Corinthians, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature. The old things passed away behold the new has come.” Thus, our mission work maybe is about that. It’s about ushering people to a new world. Figuring out how we can go to that place together, go to that scary place, go to that place of uncertainty. And if you think about what Jesus did, Jesus not only was not white, but Jesus did not aspire to whiteness. Jesus ran to blackness. Jesus hung out with the worst of the worst. Jesus did not hang out with
those that were respectable. Quote: “When the scribes, the Pharisees, saw that he was eating with the sinners and tax collectors.” “They said to his disciples; ‘why is he
eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” “And hearing this Jesus said to them, ‘It is not those who are healthy who need a physician but those who are sick.” “I did not come to call the
righteous but the sinners.” But this is a completely different move
than what even our racial justice movements do. We organize around those who are the most respectable and we try to avoid those that make our group look bad. But Frank Wilderson kind of puts it
this way though, “To attain liberation” he says, “One would have to lose one’s human coordinates and become black.” “Which is to say one would have to die.” Like we would no longer be afraid of
going to the bottom. We would no longer be afraid of
denying colonial intelligibility. And that’s what happened to Jesus, he
became unintelligible. Not just the Empire, but to his own community. He wasn’t afraid to go to that place. To call to a new world, that nobody could even understand, what Jesus was even talking about. So this is what essentially
we’re called to do. Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.” What does it mean to say we’re gonna
collectively create a world? We don’t even know what that means. If white supremacy were to end today
we’d be very confused. We’d be like what is going on. We wouldn’t even know. It would make no sense to us. And yet, we are called to go to that
place where we don’t know where we’re going to end up. But if God is a God, not of the possible
but the impossible, then we can take the charge
of what Dylan Rodriguez describes as, “To think the unthinkable, imagine the
unimaginable, and make the impossible a reality.” Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *