Nineteenth-Century Evolutionism

Nineteenth-Century Evolutionism

This was a period in science and human thought that affected great changes in how people understand the world and human development.
Notable people of this era include:
Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace,
Herbert Spencer,
Sir Edward Burnett Tylor,
Lewis Henry Morgan,
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Notable publications include:
-Herbert Spencer, The Social Organism (1860)
-Lewis Henry Morgan, Ethnical Periods (1877)
-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook (1845-1846)
-Edward Burnett Tylor, Science of Culture (1871)

-Lewis Henry Morgan, Ethnical Periods (1877)(link to article)

This is one of Morgan’s articles articulates his nineteenth century view that helped to shape anthropological theory. This was written in 1877 and discusses human progress evolution form savage to civilize. This theory of human cultural development was one of the historical foundations of nineteenth century evolution and the development of anthropology.

Morgan’s purpose is to define and category human cultural development, since there are common patterns and systems, needing structure and order. He viewed this as a moral development of the “primary institutions” such as Subsistence, government, language, the family, religion, house life and architecture, and property believing that these were in conjunction with discovery and inventions (McGee and Warm 2004, 57).These seven categories starting with the techniques of providing food to civilization beginning with the idea of ownership are what Morgan uses to define important stages in human cultural development.These are solid points that seem very reasonable to accept to some degree within anthropology and labeling of human culture and social development.

The other aspect of his theory from “Ethnic Periods” is what he calls factors were he illogically groups stages of human development starting with lower, middle and upper savagery and then moving upward to lower, middle, and upper barbarism to conclude at status of civilization (McGee and Warm 2004, 61-62).Fellow anthropologists, such as Franz Boas, criticized Morgan over his grouping method, such as the Polynesian people being labeled as middle savage in there development, but were instead of a higher category in relation to their social and governmental chiefdom structure (McGee and Warm 2004, 63-64).In this period, Morgan viewed what he would consider primitive societies as living fossils and that “human development is predetermined by the natural logic of the human mind” based on what he called “germs of thought” (McGee and Warm 2004, 66).Morgan was looking at the world’s diversity cultural and people finding that there was the ability to provide a foundation of cultural birth.

About these ads
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • theanthrogeek  On January 24, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    Those were the days. When savages were savages and primitives were primitive. Are we still there or have we moved beyond?

  • Elfego  On January 26, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Savages and primitives? We were that and have evovled. I don’t mean evovled phsyically but in the way we think. The cultures that were viewed as savages were just different and alient to those observing them.
    I feel we have moved beyond to a point where the terms race and ethnicity are beginnig to fade or blend.

    (basically)

  • Mark  On January 27, 2009 at 1:32 am

    We haven’t moved far from this viewpoint. Although, as a collective we have become more “politically correct” and “culturally sensitive” we still have this idea that somehow, some cultures are more sociologically “advanced” than other “primitive” or “less advanced” societies.
    This isn’t really seen too clearly when looking at the superficial guise we put up as a society (strictly speaking about U.S society, not world as a whole) but when you start looking at the individual parts you find that some groups still carry the idea “advanced vs primitive” around.
    I’m using very general language when responding to this, but there are alot of examples (in my opinion) to back these general claims up.

  • theanthrogeek  On January 27, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    I agree with mark’s point but would go further in saying that we use it more than he implies. Even the word “evolution” is typically thought to mean “development” rather than simply “change” in most uses of the term by non-scholars.

  • AmyDawn  On January 27, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    I think that we are still growing as a society and that we will need to keep our eyes on the direction we are headed in. “Society grows it is not manufactured”; I take great comfort in the fact that as a society we are growing irregardles of our political leadership, or the “wills of individual men” this is still as true as when Herbert Spencer wrote these words. I feel that we are growing towards something that we will have never seen before. We cannot perdict the future, thankfully. We can only evolve from what we are today.

  • sunshinebtfly (Jennifer)  On January 27, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    I feel that culture cannot be defined by which is “better” or more “civilized.” The older anthropologists had no idea how ethnocentric they were in their descriptions of the people they came across, especially native americans who to this day are called “indians.”
    No society is better or worse than another; each society is different but we are all human and a holistic view of humanity is necessary to forego the ideas that the “cultural darwinists” wrote about.
    Evolution will come from understanding.

  • Inconditus alio  On January 28, 2009 at 1:57 am

    Ok hope this is where I do my posting for anthropology 104. Primitive and Savage is relative, just as we move forward in time and space then we think ourselves evolved. I still think of myself as savage, when it comes to certain things, such as when I am ravenously hungry and eat. I think myself primitive as well when it comes to needs, wants and desires. I am unsure where the negative connotation of those words comes from for it is usually the “civilized” that say them.

  • Josh AKA "Marky Mark"  On January 28, 2009 at 4:37 am

    After living in, and being a part of the Fresno/Clovis culture, I feel that there is still much progress to be made when it comes to people actually accepting things that are different, to be in some way comparatively equal to us. Even something such as eating dog (which is something Fresn-ians and Clovis-ites definately don’t get) is enough for many to consider other cultures to be savage and primitive, even though it says nothing particular about their technological advancements, or their lifestyle.

  • KateK  On January 28, 2009 at 6:07 am

    I understand his thought process. A rudamentry understanding of evolutions is that things progress to bigger, better and more complex things. It all seems very logical and scienctific. But when has humans been predicable and logical.

    I’m reminded of the song from Disney’s “Pocahantus”. The one where both the Europeans and the Native Indians were calling the others savages. Culture is all relative and different in each culture. I do not think that Morgan could understand that in his time. This is also the time of armchair anthropology. How could he say the pottery is not as important as iron? Some cultures have turned pottery into an art form. I understand the thought process that went with Morgan’s theory, but I do not agree that evolution of culture has a perdictable future and that culture moves in an unilinear fashion.

  • gaby  On January 28, 2009 at 6:37 am

    I agree with mark. I think that we have moved beyond the primitive stage when it comes to materialistic with all of our technological advances. However, many us still walk around thinking of some societies as primitive.

  • Patricia  On January 28, 2009 at 8:11 am

    I would like to agree with Fego, however, there is still a segment of society (U.S.) that looks at “others” as inferior to themselves. Fortunately, less and less people are expressing that opinion. I believe it is still a long way off before we can all live in harmony.

  • Merrily  On January 28, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    Herbert Spencer. Can we or I imagine thinking about humanity in the manner and means that he describes in his article on The social Organism? What magnificient parallels of living and life he creates, weaving these fascinating visual of “life spreading and finding a way”. It was a little like Jeff Goldblums comment in Jurassic Park, “life will find a way.”

    Comparing our social communities as out growths of common organisms, plants, the planet, animals and the bodies of the human and its complicated nervous system is a thought I grew up toying with, but never had the courage to read or explore, since I always felt this is something I and everyone else was experiencing, but not knowing or not conscious of. Here we read about the experience and how it works.

    Herbert spencer is able to describe the connection between the human development and growth of societies and communities in a sensitive and touching way. His 3 rules for this living experience: small growth to large mass, an increasing complexity of structure, and move from no dependence of parts to the the complete dependency of parts until then integration becomes irreversible. How is this not totally fascinating.

  • Casey  On January 28, 2009 at 9:36 pm

    As a introduction to Anthro theory I was astounded by the
    blatant ethnocentrism contained in the readings. The lengths that some went to in an attempt to prove “inferiority” and “superiority” is amazing.Even more so when one realizes that these scientists were not aware of it as we are. On the subject of the progression of our society it is obvious we have made leaps and bounds.It is also obvious there is much more for us to accomplish. Our society is organic and grows as we do.Although it is made of individual parts I believe that we do have the power to shape our progress…and move past archaic ideas of a hierarchy of cultures…

  • Merrily  On January 28, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    then i got to reading EB tylor and he tells me that “tutto il mondo e paese” or “all the world is one.”

    But the phrase that really puts the meat on the table is this one of his quotes, “One event is always the son of another and we must never foret the parentage.” In relation to our our historical moments and habituations of behavior I have to agree in more common verncular, “one thing leads to another.”

    And for those who love to imbibe: “the exact place which beer holds in his calculations of happiness.”

    And so all of our lives and communities can be neatly catagorized into established filable details: 1.)weapons, 2.) textiles, 3.)myths, 4.) rites and ceremonies and all of our divisions of merit are now placed side by side as they march into the next moment of exotic life change.

  • Gaudium  On January 28, 2009 at 11:59 pm

    I think that if we look at what the terms ‘primitive’, ‘savage’, and ‘civilized’ are normally used to indicate about the groups they are used to describe, we would find that we all use these terms. Not only do we use them, but they do communicate important aspects of a culture. They are useful, especially if we understand that the instinctive dislike of such terms, is due to the moral value that we as people assign such words we use.
    In the same line, it is interesting that most people, even Spencer himself cannot break away from understanding Darwin’s theory as hierarchical in nature. When Spencer suggests society is like a tree (pg 12), this in itself suggests a type of teleology that society is growing toward. Even in Darwin’s own writing he cannot escape using vocabulary like ‘higher’ animals or ‘lower’ animals. Even the term evolution, etymologically indicates a ‘rolling out’. In talking about evolution it is very hard to not allow oneself to slip into thinking hierarchically, especially since we as humans have a tendency to think our own ideas, cultures, and even species superior to all others. I think this was Spencer’s downfall, as he continued his work into ethnocentricism, and whose ideas even influenced the later eugenics movement.

  • Jessica  On January 29, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    I watched All in the Family the day Barack Obama was inaugerated. The purpose was educational-to see how perceptions of minorites have changed since the 1970s. I could see my dad visibly cringe each time Archy Bunker made a racial slur. Truthfully, many of the slurs were unfamiliar to me. In general, I think the number of such terms has decreased. But, I live in a remote area that doesn’t contain many minorites. The term savage is no longer used to describe a person from a band or tribe. While our language has changed in an age of political correctness, misconceptions about groups different than ourselves are still prevalent. Americans who return from mission trips in other countries tell how primitive the conditions were and how thankful they are to live in America. They think life is difficult without the comforts we have grown accustomed to. Social Darwinism has passed from popularity, but we still place our hopes in up and coming technologies, thinking they hold the promise of a better life.

  • Elfego  On January 29, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    I’m with you Merrily about Spencer’s view of societies as an organism. I can’t recall where or who I had heard another analogy from similar to Spencers’s. Except that they compared societies to a computer chip.

    Computer chips are made to store information and work well when paired with compatible components. Don’t we also store information adn work well when paired with compatible components?

    As a collective we can be viewed as a giant motherboard.

  • Kathryne  On January 29, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    I agree with some of you in saying that there really is no need to call a society today as being primitive. Primitive should only be used to describe societies and groups of people that have literally come before us in time rather than technology. But, I believe that there are obvious advancements made, positive and negative, technologically and cognitively.
    I can, for instance, say that our way of thinking as society has definately progressed. But, I can also say that man has always been a sophisticated thinker. Perhaps it is man’s innate capability to think the way we do that made us modern humans in the first place. So exactly in what way can we classify our progressions? Have we had capabilities all along or are we really evolving into something “better”?
    My apologies for the pain-med influenced philosophy.

  • merrily  On January 29, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    Elfego,
    yeh… i like the idea you presented a Giant Motherboard! We are becoming more cyborg and interfacing with collosal amounts of artificial intelligence..now to have brains big enough for all the needed information or we get turned out as service clones..mmmm. and dumbed down a tad!

  • Felicia  On January 29, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    I think we are beginning to move on slightly, we are not completely out of our ethnocentric thoughts about non westernized cultures though. More people have become open minded these days and are learning that those who do not let’s say have electricity are primitive and lack social skills. People are learning that they have culture and are civilized; not in the same way we may define civilization, but civilized in that fact that they have order and structure. There are also the other half of the crowd who are completely centered with there own westernized vision of culture and civilization. They use that westernized vision of culture to make judgments on those that do not met the criteria of what it is to be civilized. As a result, these “other” people are primitive and barbarous compared to those who have electricity and stop signs.

  • Felicia  On January 29, 2009 at 9:05 pm

    I think we may be beginning to move on slightly, we are not completely out of our ethnocentric thoughts about non westernized cultures though. More people have become open minded these days and are learning that those who do not let’s say have electricity are primitive and lack social skills. People are learning that they have culture and are civilized; not in the same way we may define civilization, but civilized in that fact that they have order and structure. There are also the other half of the crowd who are completely centered with there own westernized vision of culture and civilization. They use that westernized vision of culture to make judgments on those that do not met the criteria of what it is to be civilized. As a result, these “other” people are primitive and barbarous compared to those who have electricity and stop signs.

  • Erin  On January 29, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    As I look at all the various comments written above, I find myself agreeing with many of them. For the most part society doesn’t use the terms savage and primitive in the same way that anthropologists do, and its hard to comment on this subject, after having taken anthropology classes, with an unbiased view. With the biased view I would say that we have most definitely moved on from using such titles, and have moved on from the connotation and the expectations that typically go along with those words. However as a society, many of whom don’t even know what anthropology is, those words still have much of the originial connotation. Also, these words have a new connotation of being used as slang.

  • brandi  On January 30, 2009 at 12:32 am

    I agree that the terms savage and primitve carry negative meanings. It would be nice to believe that people have moved past using these terms when comparing cultures but it is unlikely that every one has stopped using them. Cultures are indeed relative and must be looked at from within their own parameters instead of being judged by anothers.

  • Mark  On January 31, 2009 at 6:03 am

    I don’t think the issue is that people are continuing to use the the specific terms “savage” or the term “primitive”, the issue is that people are still carrying around the connotations attributed to them. And the worst part is, in my opinion obviously, is that while it is true mankind (and this is a generalization) has advanced technologically and has moved away from using certain racial terms or certain terms to classify a race or group of people, the mindset hasn’t changed at all.
    Russel Peters said it best during a stand-up show he did when he was joking about the usage of the “n” word. (this is killing the joke by the way, but it gets my point across) He said that when he was talking to some guy about performing at the Apollo theater, the guy said, “Oh, you’re gonna perform for the monday’s” or something like that. The reason why he said that, was because “nobody likes the mondays”.
    Although I’ve butchered the joke, the point was that we haven’t ridden ourselves of arbitrary classifications or racial terms, we’ve just replaced them. We have become more “sensitive” more “advanced”. The very thought that we’ve “advanced” past a point of “primitive racial” thought denotes that we are indeed exhibiting the thought process we claim to no longer carry with us.

  • Josh AKA "Marky Mark"  On February 3, 2009 at 3:57 am

    Great point Mark. Yet in the process of it all, I find myself less interested in the comedy of Russel Peters… :p

    Just kidding. But, honestly, the fact that we live in an age where we have to consciously think about how we have to speak in order to not offend a race or culture, does exemplify some ounce of progress. Yeah, we do just replace derogatory words with other words to sustain political correctness, but for many people, especially the newer generation, the replacement words do not have the same meaning that they had for people who used to use the old words. I think that nixing racism caused by ethnocentricity will just take time. I think its one of those matters where it will only last as long as people remember it. I give it 3 more generations till its a minimal problem.

  • Elfego Franco  On February 3, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    Josh
    That’s how I see the classifications of ethnicity and race going. They were used in Jim’s days but are slowly becoming obscure. I no sometimes have to pause and think before checking either box off on an application or survey.

  • Inconditus alio  On February 12, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    Unless of course you take, never the less, savage still hits home with those that don’t read this text. Exclusion is the infamous way to exclude those that are “savage” from the argument, let us ask a woman in the Amazon, or a man from Siberia, shouldn’t we approach the way we think about things from a perspective that we know the world instead of just listening to it?

    posting 2/12/2009
    Confused person
    Anthro 104
    James

  • Alex Verdugo  On February 27, 2009 at 1:25 am

    I agree with what most is being said. The term “primitive” is still being used. Just a few weeks ago I was having a conversation with some family about the anthro classes that I have been taking and “primitive” did come up. This sparked a little conversation about what is “advanced”. I think that people think that as long as they can use the term “primitive” when referring to technology they are not being offensive. This points to how highly we value technology in our culture. I like to question this notion by pointing out that our technological undertakings do have drawbacks, And that when you look at them sometimes it can make a society that looks technologically “primitive”seem advanced.

  • Charon193 (Christina Knapp)  On January 31, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    It seems to me that everyone in this time period is seriously racist. I do not just mean Lewis Henry Morgan, but Herbert Spencer and the other anthropologists of the time as well. They think that their culture is so great just because they have an industrial nation. Did they ever stop to think that maybe they were the savages? Was this not the time when they had children working in the factories? These “anthropologists” were closed-minded in their arguments, which ,in today’s English classes, would put them at a C- overall in the class. They did not even consider that the other cultures that they were putting down might be more complex than their own cultures or those that they were grouped with, a fallacy that Lewis Henry Morgan is guilty of commiting. Plus, their evidence for their claims was not very convincing. No data for one thing. Herbert Spencer even compared dissimilar objects in his essay “The Social Organisim”, a major fallacy that would give him an F in English. If you are going to compare a society to an organism, it should be compared to that organism’s group, not just itself. You need more than comparative analogy to prove a point. And do not think that you know everything. Even if you have information, it does not guarantee that you are reading it correctly (Read footnote at the bottom of pg. 53 of “Anthropological Theory”).

  • Megan Scholl  On January 31, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    From my experience, you rarely hear people use the term “savages” in normal conversations these days. Every now and then I hear the word “primitive” usually in regards to a third world country. (As in, “Look how primitive their methods of such-and-such are.”) Despite those two words not being used much, I don’t think we’ve really moved on as a society from what the terms mean. I think we’ve still got it in our heads, (or many of the United States’ citizens do, anyway) that there are so many cultures that are savage and have primitive ways. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear someone referring to some of the poorest countries in Africa where tribes still exist as being homes to savages. We compare our growth to theirs–we have skyscrapers and they have huts. We have smart homes that talk to us and refrigerators that can order our food from the grocery store, but they hunt and trade for their food and don’t own a fridge. Surely they must be savages! And their methods of survival must be so primitive! I don’t think that we’ll ever move beyond viewing other cultures as inferior to our own, or viewing them as “primitive” “savages”. It’s just too hard for people to accept everything about every culture and think of everyone as their equal.

  • Adrianna Salinas  On February 1, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    As a society we can no longer be referred to as ‘savage’ or ‘primitive’. This is in large part to the industrialized world we live in. Technology has taken away the most primitive tasks that humans have done for so long. We no longer have to forage for food because of technological advances in transportation. Food is available in supermarkets from all around the world. The ability to make fire to cook our food is literally at our finger tips.
    Now I am not naive to think that every single person in the world lives like the member’s of industrialized countries; there are those who still live “primitive” lives. When I say primitive I am referring to a society without technology. There are those places in Africa or the Amazon where tribes have virtually no contact with the outside world and its influences; their cultures have not been polluted by technology. To us they may appear primitive but not in the same way as Neanderthals or Homo sapien sapien.
    Savage on the other hand in my opinion is a dead term. Many peoples throughout history have been referred to or depicted as savages, such as the Neanderthals or the American Indians. Anthropologists today would not refer to these two groups as savages. They did what they had to do to survive.

  • Josie Weatherford  On February 2, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    I think that modern anthropology also has a slightly racist bent on it, although it is hard to get rid of this since it is a Western discipline that was created to study “other” cultures other than Western ones, and it still is. I am reminded of my friend’s story about last summer in Peru where she went on an Anthropology trip to a small village in the mountains and the natives there did not want to speak to her because she was an Anthropologist. She learned that Anthropologists had been to that village, collected information about the people, and had given that information to mining companies to help them keep the people “happy” by throwing them fiestas in which much alcohol was consumed, and their raping of the environment was forgiven and forgotten. These Anthropologists were hired by the U.S. government and I have heard that they are hiring Anthropologists to do this kind of ground work all the time. It’s a new area in the U.S. army. Kind of scary.

  • TheAnthroGeek  On February 2, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    Good point regarding the use of the term “savages”. This is what was later criticized by Boas (_The Mind of Primitive Man_) and Levi-Strauss (_The Savage Mind_).

  • TheAnthroGeek  On February 2, 2010 at 7:46 pm

    Some of Josie’s points are difficult to support or refute due to their breadth.

  • Mansione  On February 2, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    Culture determines what is savage. Although Native Americans were expert t using natural resources, had an advanced understanding of nature; they were considered savage. The “civilized” Westerners demonstrated savagery with the attempt to decimate Native Americans. It would not have occurred to the Westerners to think they were the savage beings, the ones who aren’t sophistocated.

  • Nicole Giglio  On February 3, 2010 at 12:26 am

    I really like where Megan and Adrianna went with defining the term “savage”. It holds such a negative connotation in most Western societies. It automatically relates to aggressive, primal behaviors that haven’t advanced to a “civilized” state. Lewis Henry Morgan mapped his ethical periods to end with the highest achievement possible — civilization. But to apply the same rules to the multitude of cultures on this planet is completely irrational. What may be the most advanced to one society could be meaningless to another. And simply because we have technology, as humans we may be no further along. The editors to our textbook make a wonderfully ironic note that the more peaceful societies tend to be the more “savage” ones.

  • Jason McClung  On February 3, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Ahh, the smell of pre-conceived bias in the morning!

    Ideally, as anthropologists, we should enter a situation completely absent of any pre-conceived notion as to the people we’re encountering, since any ideas we come with can color the information we’re trying to gather.

    Yet being informed is ALSO an important thing to do before encountering a new culture, since everything from navigating foreign customs in an article to offering up the wrong hand to shake with can be detrimental. Decisions decisions.

    Further, it’s hard to give up, at least how I see them, the cultural norms our own society endorses. People rush to acquire the latest big thing to ‘Keep Up with the Jonses,’ and anyone left behind is considered inferior, if only in minor social standing. If one extrapolates that ‘lack’ of Western technology to an aboriginal island-dwelling people, it’s hard to not consider them ‘primitive’ or ‘savage.’

    Perhaps it’s not the word we use to asses a group’s technology or subsistence strategy, but the mindset of inferiority we sometimes employ that we should work to remove.

    Oh, you wanted a direct answer? Well, I actively try to remove that ingrained bias, and I still struggle with it often. Stratification is still a cruel 21st century mistress.

  • Pirate Kim (Jill)  On February 3, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    In regards to Marx and Engel’s theoretical components of consciousness, consciousness is a biological component of what it is to be human. This sets us apart from animals in that by use of our consciousness we have the ability to produce specific components to insure the survival of our species. Labor is needed to create these products by use of our consciousness and thus creates the environment in which we live. All of this has led to a division of laor and the bitter struggle within societies.

  • Alfresco  On February 9, 2010 at 10:58 am

    I think we are limited to our environment and how ever we manipulate that environment to create meaning in life we adopt that as the most absolute view of how life functions in other parts of the world. Its ten times easier to spread our theories that it is to listen and accept someone else is theory, which is not only a probably for the 19th century social scientist but even for modern day strucutres like school systems, government systems that hold on to their utopian ethnocentric view of life and work to persuade other to believe those view points if their is anything the 19th century social scientist challenge todays social scientist is to create a systematic view of life looking at the context and content that derives from particular enviroments and how they work to sustain the ecology of the culture.

  • Alfresco  On February 9, 2010 at 11:26 am

    I think hindsight always offers profound wisdom but we all aim to get to the thruth no matter how unknowninly our premises might be fallacious our at that time to get to the truth..alot of the ideologies we critic stem from trying to be define man as either being inherentlygood and therefore needing religion to be the main guiding ideology or rational and needing laws and politics to be the governing ideology is the fued that riddles our history and how we define life, Karl etal were trying to define class consciousness as it pertained to people in the history context of struggling to agree on which ideology would create a homogeneous culture and reality for all humans which creates a paradox because no religion or political ideal has alleviated the conditions that humans face, if they have they have come at the expense of other humans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,541 other followers

%d bloggers like this: