As one of the seemingly sparse number of Tottenham Hotspur fans at Exeter University, I have the unique ability to comment on what exactly it’s like to witness the ‘Yid army’ chants bellowing through White Hart Lane on game day.
The ‘y’ word itself was in fact originally adopted by Spurs fans as a badge of pride to combat racist chants from opposition fans and in many ways it had the desired effect, as for years the issue of Tottenham’s racism with the ‘yid army’ chants has rarely hit headlines.
However, in the recent West Ham match this subject came to light again, with Sam Allardyce and multiple others commenting on the chants. It seems that now the topic has arisen, the question of whether this is indeed the time for Spurs fans to give the ‘Y’ word the red card comes to the forefront of our minds.
Racism has been a prevalent issue in sport for years. One particularly notable example in recent years came at Barcelona in 2008, where Spanish F1 fans wore black face paint and T-shirts with the words ‘Hamilton’s Family’ on them, taunting Lewis Hamilton during testing at the Catalunya race track.
There have also been regular occurrences of racism throughout Premier League football involving the likes of Luis Suarez and John Terry, yet in this instance, there seems to be more of a question mark over the level of racism in the chants of ‘yid’ by supporters. Whilst it was indeed adopted by the Spurs fans, and at the time had no racist intent, why do we continue to use it when it’s unnecessary and has possible negative connotations?
It is undeniable that many Jews see the ‘Y ‘word as an insult in any form that it is used, and obviously this is not something that we want in any sport. Having said this, it is well know that Tottenham is a club supported by numerous Jews and if they sing these chants, then surely one would think that they are not seen as offensive and hence we begin to question why the FA are focusing on a topic that in fact is not a pressing issue.
It is not often that Andre Villas Boas and David Cameron publicly share similar views, with Cameron stating in the Jewish Chronicle recently that: ‘There’s a difference between Spurs fans self-describing themselves as Yids and someone calling someone a Yid as an insult. You have to be motivated by hate’. Yet, as the Prime Minister, Cameron should know that in some cases, when it comes to certain fans and opposing supporters, these ‘yid’ jibes can be used in a derogatory and offensive manner.
Hence, this poses the question as to why he didn’t use his position of power and persuasion to try and rid a chant that does occasionally have offensive connotations and that does not really need to exist. A straightforward ‘find another chant’ statement could have made a huge difference.
The controversy surrounding this subject is something that won’t die out until some sort of action takes place. Essentially, this situation is in the hands of the Spurs fans, the chants will only stop if Spurs fans set an example and refrain from using them first. Or else the childish excuse of ‘they started it’ from opposing teams will never cease.
Thus, if nothing else, this is a suggestion to those avid Tottenham fans out there to be somewhat more resourceful and avoid using this chant of ‘yid army’ on such a regular basis. This way, we can establish an identity that does not leave the club prone to intermittent anti-Semitic attacks and find new unique chants without causing offence.
Rachel Brown looks at the controversy surrounding the Socialist Student general meeting and argues that, “angry activism'” is counter-productive.
Recently Socialist Students (SocStu) gathered at their general meeting. The President’s proposal to boycott a student discussion about activism and privilege was the key agenda item. The event on their agenda was born out of issues arising from the Oxfam bake sale. Aimed at raising money on International Women’s Day, instead the event became the hot-cake in student politics. The Facebook page became battleground between “the socialists” and “the white privileged”. Oxfam Society organisers were branded “white saviours”: Exeter’s middle-class students patting themselves on the back as they jovially baked cakes to “save” those “poor women of colour” who were out there. Oxfam itself was cast as the faceless giant, blindly trampling across the global scenery; their clumsy choice of official photography for similar local events was cited a divisive portrayal of first-world women “saving” third-world women. Most charity debates centre on how to spend money effectively and keep funds out of the hands of corrupt governments. But this debate was different. This debate was about the privileged activist and their cake.
James Bartholemeusz blogged “whilst the Oxfam lot were running a cake sale, raising over £150 in two hours, they [the objectors] were sat pounding their fists and/or head furiously on a keyboard”. Photo Credit: Christaface via CompfightccBroader ideas were also explored, many of which were revelatory to me. “When the focus of the discourse is on the ‘white saviour’ side [we] perpetuate systems of oppression”, a commentator argued. Evident in charity photography, images tend to depict individuals without food looking up at the camera, placing you, the donator, looking down on them (Moeller et al). A relationship of “us and them”, of “powerful and powerless”, emerges from the discourse and it divides us.
The virtue of international charities like Oxfam was also critiqued. These charities’ origins are “embedded in a number of relationships of power” and often “disempower local community organisations that have more flexible, context-dependent schemes”. Much research supports this view; Edkins argues that fundraising appeals by charities have crafted an image to Westerners that “Africa is starving”. Many will already know this does not capture the diversity of the continent. But more subtly, the image steers us to perceive famine as a moment of crisis and therefore to respond with moments of aid. But aid is just “throwing money at the problem” or may come with constraints like the International Monetary Fund sanctions. Aid cannot resolve what is fundamentally an historical inequality and requires structural shifts.
Not every student debating at the Facebook coalface agreed and convincing counter-points were made. Protesters were deemed “trivial” and that “cake is not political”. Students who had worked in underdeveloped areas gave testimony that “poor women would most likely appreciate the help”. Amnesty Society Campaigns Manager, James Bartholemeusz blogged “whilst the Oxfam lot were running a cake sale, raising over £150 in two hours, they [the objectors] were sat pounding their fists and/or head furiously on a keyboard”. Also supporting the defence, a friend of mine who researches at the UN World Food Programme advised international charities are more effective because of economies of scale (bulk-buying medicine for example) and size does matter; it makes them more influential when lobbying government.
That Facebook debates are plagued by trolls and time-wasters is a stereotype proven wrong by all of these arguments. The views provided were thought-provoking and possessed the potential to change student activism at Exeter. But my overview of the opinions given is not the complete picture. The conversation was muddied with abuse and foul language. Accusations of privilege were fired at strangers by strangers. Worse still, wise points were lost amidst swearwords. Cursing and making prejudicial judgements about people is no means to persuade. These traits delegitimise the claim of any author and cause the receivers to shut down. It’s no surprise the result was that good criticism was bound up with bad or that those responding stopped listening and reacted with similar tactics. Tactics that served like own goals and relegated learning points to pub humour.
If we want to be effective change agents, it makes sense to adopt proven methods. Gandhi is an impressive activist for his role in Indian independence. He used only methods of non-violence, including non-violent language. Gandhi’s “purity of means” rule teaches the means can sour the ends if the wrong path is taken to the goal. Strategists write this rule also makes post-conflict stability more feasible because the conclusion is reached by “winning together” rather than the losers going home with their tail between their legs. Much like the Buddhist concept of loving-kindness, opposition should never be treated hatefully. This is the correct means to solidarity.
But the student who proudly tweets, “I collect white tears”, must not be concerned with any solidarity beyond the group with which they identity. When I think about the angry approach some have taken, it is all the more preposterous the bake sale organisers were accused by them of being divisive. The reality is the angry rhetoric of some simply created a new type of division. “It is arrogant to expect civilised language”, the objectors have retorted to these points. But as Gandhi famously said: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
Returning to the scene of last week’s SocStu meeting, let us consider their response to the activism and privilege event, their means and the ends. The event was branded “racist” with all involved labeled the privileged few who could never be rid of their “white guilt”. According to sources, the panel member who was also active within SocStu was pressured into withdrawing. The Society formally agreed to boycott the event and all similar future events they deemed reprehensible. By all accounts, their policy is “do not engage”. This unfortunate outcome left us without a vital perspective and with an unbalanced panel. Ironically, any discussion would have been rendered the “circle jerk” objectors had prophesised and the event had to be cancelled.
But what demanded their policy of non-engagement? There are as many perspectives of this event as there are people involved. SocStu might have perceived it was not going to be the safe space organisers desired. Sources state they also felt it was a set-up, with the actual aim being so a panel of white privileged students can have a bash at the lefties; our revenge for the Oxfam bake sale saga.
But this was nothing more than conspiracy theory. The facts were that after the Oxfam bake sale, many felt the important ideas raised, especially those of some Socialist Students, needed proper consideration. The Gender Equality Society, together with several societies, organised a discussion event so students had a forum in which to discuss “the privileged activist”. The panel members consisted entirely of people who had no part in organising the bake sale and some did not even partake as cake-eaters. Furthermore, the panel was not entirely middle-class and the absence of female speakers was not due to lack of opportunity. All societies involved were asked to select speakers, including the Socialist Students.
Oxfam Society’s willingness to engage even though certain members had been bruised by the sharp tongues of some opposers to the bake sale should have been applauded. And it makes me proud to be a liberal that despite the personal insults, we wanted to engage with the core issues and develop in doing so; a response that follows the liberal tradition of debate, toleration and a belief in human perfectibility.
We worked hard to ensure the panel opening the round-table discussion reflected a wide-range of opinions held about “the privileged activist”. For the SocStu panel member, speaker’s time was extended so there was sufficient time to cover their Marxist perspective. This extension was not resented but welcomed because all organisers shared the same aim: To have a constructive discussion from which students would develop their understanding of privilege and activism.
I acknowledge that despite our efforts to make all students feel welcomed and respected, we might have fallen short. Whatever our shortcomings though, solutions are not created against a wall of silence. As chairperson for the event, I am still unclear why the boycott was felt appropriate. The boycott also stopped other societies affiliated with SocStu from being involved when, sources state, some would have liked to give their perspective. It seems counter-productive to overcome oppression with a boycott which in fact functioned as a new oppression.
But this is not about setting the facts right, my point is that the conduct of some is not conducive to making progress together. There are members of SocStu with whom I feel politically kindred and it is reassuring we have an intelligent, vocal left-wing of the body politic. What remains puzzling is the idea of achieving leftist influence (or even, revolution) whilst being unwilling to engage. The remaining strategy, making angry accusations of racism and privilege to strangers on Facebook also serves no end; save to alienate people from ever hearing a message that has merit. How does an activist transform society with a non-engagement policy in this context? As they say, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
That student life will never be characterised as one of political consensus is to be applauded. Political diversity ensures our views are challenged and, hopefully all challenges are punctuated by pointy fingers, wide-eyed sighs and, a Ram ale. But the day students decide to boycott events and verbally harm one another spells disaster for Campus politics. With boycotts and foul-communication, nothing comes from nothing; with engagement, there is always the chance of progress. I hope the student body will build upon this year’s experiences and learn from the mistakes we’ve made on “both sides”. Future events must become safe spaces for discussion and differences should be regulated by an ethos of loving-kindness not boycott policies.
English Defence League in Britain. Image credits: Gavin Lynn
After the Woolwich murder, Rory Morgan argues why there is so much unjustified hatred for Islam in the United Kingdom.
With the recent horrific attack in Woolwich there has been a significant rise in hate crimes directed at Muslims. The Faith Matters hotline (a service set up to deal with anti-Muslim attacks) recorded 162 incidents on the Wednesday after the attack, a dramatic growth in the daily average of six. Even six is too many. This seems to once again show a severe spike in the great problem this country has with Islamophobia. Many will say that this stems directly from the attackers’ loose connections with the faith, but when considering solid facts it seems more that the British and western media outlets are truly the ones to blame for this now growing problem of unfair racial generalisation and prejudice.
Political academic Mark Goodwin recently tweeted that in a study of media articles between 2000-2008 only 2% framed Muslims positively. It would be ridiculous to deny that the events of 9/11 in 2001 and the London July bombings of 2005 have had a colossal impact on the representations of Muslims in the press, but here is where the problem truly lies. The press has made the faith of Islam almost synonymous with terrorism, despite the fact the overwhelming majority of Muslims view such events with an equal measure of horror as the rest of the world does and are as likely to become a terrorist as anyone else. The equivalent would be everyone in the 1980s regarding all Irish Catholics as terrorists because of the actions of the IRA, or all atheists sharing communist tendencies because of the Communist regime’s minor affiliation. This problem is also not helped by the fact that television shows such as Homeland and Spooks continually portray Muslims as scheming terrorists, helping to assert a negative stereotype of Muslims in the western world.
An “‘Us’ and ‘Them’” culture seems to have developed with 47% of Britons stating they considered Muslims a threat in a YouGov poll. This is despite the fact that 83% of Muslims are proud to be a British citizen, and 82% want to live in diverse and mixed neighbourhoods, two statistics that suggest contentment with the country and the other people in it. These figures very much indicate that it is less the attitudes and behaviour of the Islamic community that is the problem, and more the label of extremism that has been forced on to them by the press. You only have to go on the Daily Mail website to see articles almost specifically designed to promote racial hatred, with one recent article even publicising various YouTube videos of unhinged fanatical individuals celebrating terrorism. Similar videos can be found of Christian extremists, and should a paper with such a large readership really be devoting an entire article on the basis of a site that also has videos of dancing cats?
It also feels very bizarre for so many Britons to affirm their disdain for Islamic beliefs and values when the vast majority have neither read the Qur’an nor visited a mosque and are instead subject to information from tabloid newspapers and questionable websites. The Qur’an does not advocate killing and the many verses often quoted by extremists are taken out of the true context of defending oneself until safety has been restored. Unfortunately the media seems to have gone through a similar process of indoctrination that extremists do, taking verses out of the correct context and allowing the true teachings to be warped into something unrecognisable in meaning and intent.
The press coverage surrounding the attack in Woolwich has been focused strongly on the religious beliefs of Michael Adebolajo, who has identified himself as Muslim. In the video of his speech shortly after the attacks what he is saying is far less shocking than the composure and relatively calm appearance he exudes (considering he has just gruesomely murdered a man). Anyone who is able to adopt such an attitude, verging on sterile, in such circumstances must surely be considered mentally unstable. It seems quite farfetched to suggest a widely followed religious doctrine can be viewed as the sole cause for such acts of violence from individuals like this. The focus of the press should be more on the individual sanity of the attackers and just how they managed to become so indoctrinated with extremism, rather than treating Adebolajo as a mouth piece for the massive Muslim community in the UK. Actual spokespeople for the faith, such as the Muslim Council of Britain, Ramadhan Foundation and the Islamic Society of Britain, have, unsurprisingly, all condemned the actions.
Despite all of these truths, the stigma of extremism continues to stick to Islam. What is even more distressing is that recent and previous statistics continue to show that far more Muslims are victims of acts of terrorism than any other group. The Global Terrorism index from 2002-2011 shows that no Western nations come close to placing in the top ten of those countries worst-affected by terrorism, yet Islamic countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan feature in the top five. There is almost a cruel irony to Muslims being blamed and identified with something from which they feel the most negative consequences. The sad truth is that the British population are more interested in the extremely rare attacks that occur on their doorstep, rather than the far more pressing and frequents ones that occur on the other side of the world.
The very fact we now have a term for Muslim hate crimes draws a worrying parallel to the dangerous anti-Semitic events that occurred seventy years ago at the hands of a psychopath. There are organisations here on British soil which create cause for concern. The English Defence League, at the time of publication, has 136 thousand likes on Facebook and continues to actively target and blame Muslims for these attacks and other domestic problems. The British National Party organised a march on the 1st June to protest against Islam. In such difficult times for the country there is a worrying likelihood of these organisations increasing in popularity and by extension power.
Islamophobia in the United Kingdom will only disappear when British Muslims are properly accepted as citizens and not viewed as foreign and dangerously different. More needs to be done in the area of education, but not much will change until the media become less concerned with whom these extremists relate themselves to and instead begin to consider how human beings can be led so astray.
On 1st – 2nd June, Exeter’s Belmont Park played host to the annual Respect Festival.
This year witnessed a record turnout of over 23 000 visitors, who came to enjoy the festival’s various music and dance performances, food stalls and activities. The festival aimed to promote diversity, as well as broadcast the message of anti-racism by celebrating a range of cultures.
The city’s park was transformed as numerous performers appeared on stage, the local community was represented by a variety of stall-holders, music and dance workshops were organised, children could get involved in a range of activities, and there was an opportunity to taste food from around the world.
The event was coordinated by Paul Giblin, who said, “This was our biggest celebration of diversity yet, numbers indicating that an incredible sixth of the city’s population came out to an event with an explicit anti-racist message.
We were able to showcase local communities and campaigns in a way which was both entertaining and educational, with an amazing celebratory atmosphere underpinned by values of social inclusion encapsulated in our ‘all different, all equal’ slogan.”
Respect is run entirely by volunteers, and began in 1997. The festival has grown enormously since then, with a growing number of visitors every year. Respect Festival has demonstrated how effectively and successfully Exeter’s diverse population can be celebrated in a fun, vibrant and accessible way.
Issue 601’s Comment section—specifically the “tribal” theme of the SSB—was nothing short of frightfully offensive, particularly for us as students who live in an international community. The ball has always been a great idea, but themes like these actively do away with any ideas of intersectionality or tackling prejudices.
Much as Exeposé has tried to be objective about it, articles in the later pages such as Rebecca Longhurst’s sickening piece on “affordable tribal fashions” clearly demonstrate a leaning towards endorsing cultural appropriation—which is not a mere matter of one person’s opinion over another. It is a disturbing, oppressive practice that results from the cashing in on cultures as “commodities”. It happens when India is reduced to colours and the song-dance-Taj Mahal trope, or Latin America to a feathered headdress as though it were fancy dress, existing solely for one’s pleasure, to borrow and discard as one pleases. This is why Gwen Stefani faces flak for her exploitation of traditions like wearing bindis and saris. Wearing them in itself is not appropriative. What is, is the fact that they’re seen as “fashion” that can be shrugged off at will. That they’re context-less and entertainment. That they become reductive symbols for entire cultures and emphasise homogeneity.
The debate is not helped by Nandini Basu saying “the tribal theme being racist genuinely didn’t cross [my] mind”. This negotiating of “authentic experiences” by roping in someone with presumably South Asian origins to say, effectively, “I don’t think so, hence it can’t be appropriation” is fairly dubious. Deleuze’s essay “Plato and the Simulacrum” addresses the problems of this very notion of authenticity. Cultural appropriation is not restricted to political discussions or rallies, as James Crouch evidently seems to think so when he says “your aim at a party is not to make political statements with your costume but to have fun”. Fun, yes- by whom, for whom, and at whose expense? And what is this line dividing the theory and praxis of beliefs?
This is institutionalized racism existing invisibly in everyday life, capitalising and trivializing other cultures. Arguing in favour of intentions and ignorance becomes an excuse for erasure and endorsing the falsehood of reverse-racism. If Crouch wants to inform himself about cultural appropriation, I suggest he dump Bruce Parry and head, instead, towards Gayatri Spivak, Edward Said, Frantz Fanon and Ashis Nandy. They will also help override potentially insipid arguments such as “aren’t we endorsing your culture by wearing it?” and accusations of “not taking everything so seriously or making everything so political”. This kind of theory deals with our everyday lives, and helps us understand how to live alongside other cultures better, instead of trampling over them.
The committee should know by now that this is deeply murky territory, best not to be entered to avoiding embarrassing themselves. The rest of us are, meanwhile, left bewildered and deeply saddened at the gaping chasm that exists between saying Exeter is a safe space for cultures, and actually living that reality out.
Despite an entertaining Euro 2012 and an exhilarating domestic season that culminated in an extraordinary finale that saw Manchester City crowned Premier League champions for the first time, the past twelve months have not always been a fantastic advertisement for football. Enthralling matches have often taken a back seat, as stories of racism on and off the field have made their way onto both the front and back pages. Following the latest string of incidents that have taken place over the last two months or so, an organisation has started to involve itself in various matters concerning racism in football – and not without controversy.
The Society of Black Lawyers (SBL), founded in 1969, has divided opinion for several reasons. One argument against the society is that, by its very nature, the SBL is promoting a form of segregation. A ‘Society of White Lawyers’ would of course be viewed as an exclusive organisation with no rightful place in a world where all races should be treated equally.
The SBL’s recent actions have come under scrutiny: it called for referee Mark Clattenburg to be suspended from duty after allegedly using ‘inappropriate language’ towards John Obi Mikel, despite the fact that both assistant referees, and indeed the fourth official, gave the referee their full support. Following the incident, former referee Clive Wilkes said that some referees felt that they had come under so much pressure that they were considering boycotting Chelsea matches, so the SBL’s decision to involve itself seems to have served only to further fuel the tension between referees and clubs without really having much of a meaningful influence.
The SBL has also had its say in a debate that dates back to the origins of another London club, Tottenham Hotspur. The SBL chairman, Peter Herbert, has stated that he will contact the police if Spurs fans continue to chant using the controversial term ‘Yid’ and its variants. However, many fans have argued that the term is used as an affectionate nickname to support the Jewish communities situated in the Tottenham area. An official club statement read:
“Our fans adopted the chant as a defence mechanism in order to own the term and thereby deflect anti-Semitic abuse. Our position on this topic is very clear. The club does not tolerate any form of racist or abusive chanting.
“[Spurs fans] do not use the term to others to cause any offence, they use it a chant amongst themselves.”
Herbert was quick to shun the argument that a ‘defence mechanism’ is an acceptable way of justifying such chanting, but the argument that he put forward seems to hold little weight itself:
“If you had a group of Afro-Caribbean supporters using the ‘N-word’, even as a ‘defence mechanism’, it would clearly be completely unacceptable.”
Acceptable or not, the fact is that the ‘N-word’ is indeed used by Afro-Caribbean people, along with various other ethnicities, across the country, as an informal term of endearment. Furthermore, it has been a regular component – some would say even a basis – of black music culture for decades, and this continues to be the case today. To suggest that the usage of such a word is ‘completely unacceptable’ states that there is no context in which the word could be deemed inoffensive, and this blanket approach to racism has been seen as naïve and simplistic by the SBL’s critics, who argue that the Spurs fans’ chanting is not anti-Semitic due to the context behind it.
Over the last twelve months there have been a host of racial offences in the world of football. Some of the more straightforward examples (such as Chelsea captain John Terry calling QPR defender Anton Ferdinand ‘f***ing black c**t’, a fan hurling a banana at Anzhi Makhachkala defender Christopher Samba, and Chelsea fan Gavin Kirkham making monkey gestures at Manchester United’s Danny Welbeck) are easy to identify, and the fact that the perpetrators need punishment is clear.
However, in trying to fight its cause – noble as it may be – the SBL has chosen to involve itself in some of the more ambiguous cases, which has left the public with mixed feelings about the organisation, which some say should not exist at all. Although it has succeeded in further bringing racism in football to the public’s attention, whether it has really done anything of influence remains to be seen.
The Safer Sex Ball is the one event in Exeter that can be guaranteed to generate controversy.
Whether it’s outcry over the outfits or cynicism over its cause, criticism always rises up. Some of it self-righteous, some of it misguided and some of it, well, really quite sensible.
The issue that this article takes to task is this year’s theme: ‘tribal’. The SSB is a fun event and not one to take seriously, but it is worth having a closer look at the theme to see any potential issues.
So, let’s begin by figuring out what ‘tribal’ actually means. A quick Google gives you a decent definition: “Of or characteristic of a tribe or tribes”. So, any outfit at the SSB this year will bepurporting to be representative in some way of a tribe.
The definition of a ‘tribe’ itself is more convoluted but essentially boils down to being a group. However, an analysis of the term in an African social action paper, Pambazuka News, says this: “In the modern West, tribe often implies primitive savagery… stereotypes of primitiveness and conservative backwardness are also linked to images of irrationality and superstition.”
I am not saying ‘tribal’ has to mean something racial or even cultural. Plenty of people have talked about wearing a caveman-type costume to the SSB and some are even going to use their own cultures as costume inspiration, whether being from Wales or from a ‘tribe’ of music-lovers. And that is fine. But when I turn once again to Google, the image results for ‘tribal costume’ are
almost exclusively of non-Western culture.
The problems with this idea of costume as representing a ‘tribe’ are two-fold. Firstly, taking bits and pieces from various cultures (a “Native American” headdress here, a ‘Zulu Warrior’ grass-skirt there) is disrespectful and reductive to that culture. It’s just not cool to ignore the genuine cultural meaning of those items and wear them simply as decoration. It’s not the same as taking various aspects of British culture because, unlike what the BNP might have you believe, Britain has neither been massively subjugated nor repressed. A quick look at history will tell you who has been repressed and a review of the British Empire would be a good place to start.
This brings me to the second half of the issue. If taking bits and pieces of people’s culture is reductive, then lumping them all in together as simply being ‘tribal’ is even worse. It is one thing to simply take inspiration from something, it is another to class a range of varying cultures, societies and people as ‘tribal’ simply because they are not Western and white.
Taking all this into consideration, it is clear that the ‘tribal’ theme has the potential to patronise and reduce non-Western culture to something ‘different’, as well as primitive and backward. We can all see what’s wrong with ‘blackface’, so hopefully we can all see what could be wrong with a largely white, middle-class, privileged group of people parading around in so-called ‘tribal’ costume.
exeposedev 