Posted: Sat 02 Jun 2007 13:50 Post subject: "Myths Across the Color Line"
Quote:
Myth 3. European genetic admixture in African Americans comes from rape.
I think a qualifier would be appropriate here, and it should read: "Myth 3. All European genetic admixture in African Americans comes from rape."
With "All" added, the statement is definately a myth. Without a qualifier, the statement is more vague, and calling it a myth seems to imply that none (or not a significant amount) of the euro admixture in African Americans comes from rape, which I think is debatable.
Quote:
Most African Americans and White liberals attribute it to White-on-Black rape during slavery.
Fsweet seems to only focus on documented inter-marriages with free african-americans. But these unions would not account for the majority of "mulattos" that were slaves (or born slaves).
Did mixed race slaves come from consensual unions?? Is the opinion of "African-Americans and white liberals", not at least partially correct??
Quote:
the current levels of African genetic admixture in White Americans and of European genetic admixture in Black Americans match what one would expect from the number of actual documented intermarriages....
Also, for as long as records have been kept, Black male/White female intermarriages have been more common than White male/Black female intermarriages.....
Finally, among Americans with “mismatched” mtDNA and Y markers (matrilineal from one continent and patrilineal from the other), most have patrilineal European markers, but a large minority show the reverse.
Also, these three statements seem to contradict each other. If documented intermarriages are said to account for afro-euro admixture, and the majority of these marriages were black male/white female relationships, then the fact that most americans with "mismatched" markers have patrilineal European markers contradicts the first assertion because that is not "what one would expect from documented marriages."
Last edited by Phil345 on Sat 02 Jun 2007 13:57; edited 1 time in total
We have discussed this before in another thread. I think that before we can discuss it again, we need to resolve your definition of "rape." Assume for a moment that a female Euro-American slave owner coerces or seduces a male African-American slave (her property) to have sex with her. Is her act (which is solely due to her power over him) an act of "rape," in your word usage? Clearly, any discussion we have about "rape" will depend on just what you mean by the word.
Coerced sex is "rape", and generally male-on-female; not often the other way around.
I take it then that you consider any coerced sex to be "rape," whether male-on-female or vice-versa. You believe that the latter occurs less often, but it is still "rape" in your usage of the word.
Using your own definition then, molecular evidence of Afro-Euro assymetry in "mismatched" patrilineal versus matrilineal markers has no bearing on the question of "rape." Whether BM/WF matings were more or less common than WM/BF is irrelevant to how many of those matings were acts of "rape" in your definition of the term.
Furthermore, if by "coerced" you mean resulting from an imbalance of power, then one could argue that virtually every B/W pairing is "rape" by your definition. This, incidentally, is precisely what we concluded the last time that we discussed it. For what it is worth, my definition of "rape" in this context differs from yours. My essay does not use your definition.
Last edited by fwsweet on Sun 24 Jun 2007 23:46; edited 1 time in total
I take it then that you consider any coerced sex to be "rape," whether male-on-female or vice-versa. You believe that the latter occurs less often, but it is still "rape" in your usage of the word.
Correct. But although, I believe female-on-male rape is technically possible, I wasnt considering that at all when when addressing "Myth 3", so thats not relevant anyway.
I question the validty of fsweets conclusions in myth 3, because it ignores the origin of mixed raced slaves altogether - none of whom were from marriages, nor were they born to white women ( since children of white women were legally free).
Since the majority of the "mulatto" population in the antebellum were slaves (please correct me if I'm wrong on this), the circumstances of the unions that produced them would have the most bearing on this subject.
Quote:
Using your own definition then, molecular evidence of Afro-Euro assymetry in "mismatched" patrilineal versus matrilineal markers has no bearing whatsoever on the question of "rape."
In Myth 3 you implied, that documented marriages accounts for afro-euro admixture (i assume you meant predominantly); these unions obviously not being coerced. How can that be, if most of these marriages were BM/WF pairings (twice as many), and mismatched patrilineal/matrilineal markers are the other way around??
...and again, if most mulattos were slaves, documented marriages would not be able to account for most admixture anyway.
Quote:
Furthermore, if by "coerced" you mean resulting from an imbalance of power, then one could argue that virtually every B/W pairing is "rape" by your definition.
No I never said that. This is how you dismissed me last time - by projecting this abstract definition of "rape" on me:
fsweet wrote:
Of course, as Phil345 implies, some would argue that all Black/White relationships, no matter how loving and loyal, even the BM/WF relationships of which there have always been twice as many as WM/BF, are a form of rape since such arguments assume that White wives have more social power than their Black husbands.
I'm not implying that, and never was. I defined rape clearly (coerced sex); any loving consensual relationships between free persons (the only unions fsweet discusses in Myth #3) are obviously not rape, and I wasnt talking about those.
Slavery is certainly not irrelavant in this discussion, and I think the origin of all those mulatto freedmen should be considered.
Furthermore, if by "coerced" you mean resulting from an imbalance of power, then one could argue that virtually every B/W pairing is "rape" by your definition.
No I never said that. This is how you dismissed me last time - by project this abstract definition of "rape" on me:
Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought that this was your position. It is a very common position. Indeed, it is the master narrative within the history and sociology departments with which I have come in contact.
Phil345 wrote:
although, I believe female-on-male rape is technically possible, I wasn’t considering that at all when addressing "Myth 3."
Ah. In that case, sexual asymmetry is relevant because we can thereby eliminate BM/WF pairings from the tally of potential rapes.
Phil345 wrote:
myth 3 ... ignores the origin of mixed raced slaves altogether - none of whom were from marriages, nor were they born to white women ( since children of white women were legally free).
This is incorrect. The children of free women were free, even if the mother was of mostly African ancestry (Martin Delaney was born free because his overwhelmingly African mother was free, although his father was a slave). And the children of slave women were slaves, even if the mother was of mostly European ancestry (Eston Hemings was born a slave because his overwhelmingly European mother was a slave, even though his father was free). You equate “Blackness” with “slavery” and “Whiteness” with freedom by anachronistically projecting today’s racial attitudes (including the ODR) onto a past where a slave’s “race” was irrelevant to their status. There is no question that most slaves were of mostly African ancestry (most modern-day African Americans are of mostly African ancestry, after all) and that most 19th-century free Americans were of mostly European ancestry (simple demographics—most 19th-century Americans overall were of Euro ancestry). But to suggest that a “white-looking” phenotype made a woman or her children free is flat-out wrong and easily disprovable from fugitive slave newspaper advertisements alone.
Phil345 wrote:
Since the majority of the "mulatto" population in the antebellum were slaves (please correct me if I'm wrong on this), the circumstances of the unions that produced them would have the most bearing on this subject.
I know of no evidence either way on this. For one thing, it depends on what you mean by “mulatto”: (1) a first-generation offspring of mating across the color line, (2) someone of 50-50 Afro-Euro admixture, or (3) someone of any Afro-Euro admixture. The first definition results in few individuals, most of whom were probably the children of Irish Immigrant housemaids and their employers’ sons in New England (Blacks families, not White ones, hired these girls). The second definition results in more people, and probably most of them were slaves. The third encompasses most of the population of North America, of which less than ten percent were slaves.
Phil345 wrote:
if most mulattos were slaves, documented marriages would not be able to account for most admixture anyway.
There is no evidence that most mulattos were slaves unless you define “mulatto” very carefully so as to yield this result.
Phil345 wrote:
In Myth 3 you implied that documented marriages accounts for afro-euro admixture (i assume you meant predominantly); these unions obviously not being coerced. How can that be, if most of these marriages were BM/WF pairings (twice as many), and mismatched patrilineal/matrilineal markers are the other way around?
According to the census, intermarriage was higher before the Civil war than it would ever be again until 1980. Of this huge number of intermarriages (none of which were rapes, by definition), those of BM/WF were nearly double the number of WM/BF marriages. On the other hand, according to asymmetrical DNA, the number of WM/BF initial first-generation pairings was nearly double the number of BM/WF pairings. There is no evidence as to how many such first-generation matings took place, but some may have resulted from rape. The best explanation I can come up with is that most first-generation biracial children with White fathers were born out of wedlock. Of those children with White fathers and Black mothers who were not married, some may have been the product of forcible rape. Similarly, of those children with Black fathers and White mothers who were not married, some may have been the product of forcible rape. There were more of the former than of the latter.
This is incorrect. The children of free women were free, even if the mother was of mostly African ancestry (Martin Delaney was born free because his overwhelmingly African mother was free, although his father was a slave). And the children of slave women were slaves, even if the mother was of mostly European ancestry (Eston Hemings was born a slave because his overwhelmingly European mother was a slave, even though his father was free). You equate “Blackness” with “slavery” and “Whiteness” with freedom by anachronistically projecting today’s racial attitudes (including the ODR) onto a past where a slave’s “race” was irrelevant to their status.
I meant free white women, and that none of their children from mixed marriages with BM became slaves - which is why I wasnt considering those relationships at all. Furthermore we can be sure that almost none of the slave women could be the source of Euro MtDNA because of the "partus rule" (regardless of their race or color).
Quote:
Phil345 wrote:
Since the majority of the "mulatto" population in the antebellum were slaves (please correct me if I'm wrong on this), the circumstances of the unions that produced them would have the most bearing on this subject.
I know of no evidence either way on this. For one thing, it depends on what you mean by “mulatto”: (1) a first-generation offspring of mating across the color line, (2) someone of 50-50 Afro-Euro admixture, or (3) someone of any Afro-Euro admixture.
I dont think the "French Creoles" website is the most realiable source, but they do point out the census and/or slave scedule statistics here:
The great fact about mulattoes that emerges form a comparison of the census of 1860 with that of 1850 is a massive increase in the number of mulattoes who were slaves. During the decade of the 1850’s slavery was becoming whiter, visibly so and with amazing rapidity. White people were enslaving themselves, as it were, in the form of their children and their children’s children. While black slavery increased in numbers only 19.8 percent in the decade, mulatto slavery rose by an astounding 66.9 percent. The raw number of slaves visibly mulatto grew impressively from 247,000, to 412,000, and their percentage in the total slave population increased from 7.7 percent to 10.4 percent.
Mulatto freedom was the other side of the coin, and the statistics there offered no encouragement. In the South the count of free mulattoes hardly grew at all, rising from 102,000 to 107,000.
Assuming that these census statistics are accurate, in 1860 there were 412,000 "mulatto" slaves, and 107,000 free "mulattos." I'm also assuming that "mulatto" meant somebody that "looked mulatto" to the enumerator- which probably would make them typically 50% or more european.
That means that most afro-euro admixture ( aprox 4 times as much judging from the stats) came from the slave population and not free persons. Therefore, the origin of mixed race slaves, and the circumstances of the unions that produced them, carrys much more weight in determining this.
...and finally, its not unreasonable to assume that the vast majority of these WM/BF sexual encounters that account for the mixed race slave population, were results of rape, since slaves were pieces of property, did not have free will, and therefore cannot give consent.
It is unlikely that slave-master/overseer sexual encounters were mostly the results of genuine love and/or mutual consent.
Quote:
Phil345 wrote:
In Myth 3 you implied that documented marriages accounts for afro-euro admixture (i assume you meant predominantly); these unions obviously not being coerced. How can that be, if most of these marriages were BM/WF pairings (twice as many), and mismatched patrilineal/matrilineal markers are the other way around?
According to the census, intermarriage was higher before the Civil war than it would ever be again until 1980. Of this huge number of intermarriages (none of which were rapes, by definition), those of BM/WF were nearly double the number of WM/BF marriages. On the other hand, according to asymmetrical DNA, the number of WM/BF initial first-generation pairings was nearly double the number of BM/WF pairings. There is no evidence as to how many such first-generation matings took place, but some may have resulted from rape. The best explanation I can come up with is that most first-generation biracial children with White fathers were born out of wedlock.
Or could it be that most afro-euro admixutre (predominantly coming from the slave population) was from WM/BF unions?
Furthermore we can be sure that almost none of the slave women could be the source of Euro MtDNA because of the "partus rule" (regardless of their race or color).
I agree. The partus law only went into effect in British North America in 1662, so prior matings would not apply. But then slavery itself also only went into effect in British North America at about that time. The thing is that a continental mismatch between mtDNA versus Y-DNA happened only one in any given lineage and was then propagated indefinitely. The preponderance of Euro male and Afro female pairings could well date to the 1600s or even earlier (Arab slavers in West Africa, for example). It is significant that the U.S. mismatch does not approach the huge asymmetry in Latin America.
Phil345 wrote:
I don’t think the "French Creoles" website is the most reliable source, but they do point out the census and/or slave schedule statistics here:
For something as easily available as census primary-source raw data, the reliability of a secondary source is irrelevant. The only issue is the actual numbers.
William Loren Katz wrote:
The great fact about mulattoes that emerges form a comparison of the census of 1860 with that of 1850 is a massive increase in the number of mulattoes who were slaves. … While black slavery increased in numbers only 19.8 percent in the decade, mulatto slavery rose by an astounding 66.9 percent. The raw number of slaves visibly mulatto grew impressively from 247,000, to 412,000, and their percentage in the total slave population increased from 7.7 percent to 10.4 percent.
The raw census data does not show the color or "race" of slaves--just how many slaves were in each household. The census does show the color of free citizens. According to the raw census data, there were 432,700 African-Americans in 1850. Of these, 151,200 (35 percent) were recorded as "mulatto." In 1860, out of 223,300 free African Americans 88,000 (39 percent) were recorded as "mulatto." In 1870, there were 2,436,200 African Americans of which 337,200 (14 percent) were listed as "mulatto." In the period from 1850 to 1990, U.S. "mulattos" as a percentage of total African-American population has been (for the complete spreadsheet, see http://Backintyme.com/rawdata/ipumspop.xls):
1850: 35 percent
1860: 39 percent
1870: 14 percent
1880: 16 percent
1890: unknown
1900: 0 percent
1910: 21 percent
1920: 16 percent
1930 - 1990: not recorded.
Assuming that the drop from 21 percent "mulattos" in 1910 to 16 percent in 1920 was not the most devastating unknown genocide in history, the only thing we can conclude from these data is that census-takers changed whom they labeled as "mulatto." The very same person might be "mulatto" in one census but not in the next. A glance at the census takers' instructions over the past century and a half confirms this.
If you assume that the labeling criteria did not change from 1850 to 1870, then the data show the opposite of Katz's claim. They show a small (4 percent) increase in the number of "mulattos" from 1850 to 1860, followed by a huge drop (25 percent) in their number from 1860 to 1870 consequent to the freeing of the slaves. If anything, this shows that the freedmen were overwhelmingly "non-mulatto" compared to the freeborn African Americans.
Phil345 wrote:
That means that most afro-euro admixture (aprox 4 times as much judging from the stats) came from the slave population and not free persons. Therefore, the origin of mixed race slaves, and the circumstances of the unions that produced them, carrys much more weight in determining this.
I do not follow your logic. Genetic admixture proportions today reflect genetic admixture proportions in the past. Proportions are what count in genetics, not absolute numbers. The tenfold increase in the free African-American population from 1860 to 1870 caused a 2/3 drop in the "mulatto" fraction. Hence, there were proportionally three times more "mulattos" among freeborn African Americans than among freedmen. This means three times more weight.
Phil345 wrote:
...and finally, its not unreasonable to assume that the vast majority of these WM/BF sexual encounters that account for the mixed race slave population, were results of rape, since slaves were pieces of property, did not have free will, and therefore cannot give consent. It is unlikely that slave-master/overseer sexual encounters were mostly the results of genuine love and/or mutual consent.
This is a false dichotomy. I agreed to discuss this with you only because you assured me that your definition of "rape" was not merely sex with an imbalance of power between the parties, but was limited to forcible assault. If you now renege on this assurance and return to the definition that any sex between powerful and powerless is "rape" by definition, this discussion is over.
The great fact about mulattoes that emerges form a comparison of the census of 1860 with that of 1850 is a massive increase in the number of mulattoes who were slaves. … While black slavery increased in numbers only 19.8 percent in the decade, mulatto slavery rose by an astounding 66.9 percent. The raw number of slaves visibly mulatto grew impressively from 247,000, to 412,000, and their percentage in the total slave population increased from 7.7 percent to 10.4 percent.
The raw census data does not show the color or "race" of slaves--just how many slaves were in each household.
The 1850 and 1860 slave schedules (or "slave census') do record the race/color of slaves. I believe this is where that statistic came from.
Quote:
The census does show the color of free citizens. According to the raw census data, there were 432,700 African-Americans in 1850. Of these, 151,200 (35 percent) were recorded as "mulatto." In 1860, out of 223,300 free African Americans 88,000 (39 percent) were recorded as "mulatto." In 1870, there were 2,436,200 African Americans of which 337,200 (14 percent) were listed as "mulatto."
This is almost a 4 fold increase of the population of free mulattos from 1860-70, meaning that the large majority of mulattos in 1870 were newly freed slaves.
Quote:
If you assume that the labeling criteria did not change from 1850 to 1870, then the data show the opposite of Katz's claim. They show a small (4 percent) increase in the number of "mulattos" from 1850 to 1860
followed by a huge drop (25 percent) in their number from 1860 to 1870 consequent to the freeing of the slaves. If anything, this shows that the freedmen were overwhelmingly "non-mulatto" compared to the freeborn African Americans.
Katz doesnt claim otherwise. He states that 10.4 percent of slaves in 1860 were mulatto -- however that 10% of the slaves represents the majority of the mulatto population in the country.
Quote:
Phil345 wrote:
That means that most afro-euro admixture (aprox 4 times as much judging from the stats) came from the slave population and not free persons. Therefore, the origin of mixed race slaves, and the circumstances of the unions that produced them, carrys much more weight in determining this.
I dont follow your logic. Genetic admixture proportions today reflect genetic admixture proportions in the past. Proportions are what count in genetics, not absolute numbers.
Yes, and a larger proportion of mulattos (mulattos being the source of afro-euro genetic admixture) were slaves.
Quote:
Hence, there were proportionally three times more "mulattos" among freeborn African Americans than among freedmen. This means three times more weight.
I dont follow your logic. That a larger proportion of free persons (a small subset of the total afro-american population) were mulatto doesnt mean anything in the scope of the whole population....
Of the total population of mulattos in the country (slave and free), a much larger proportion of them were slaves, which means that mulatto slaves carry more weight....
...meaning that most afro-euro admixture can not be from documented intermarriages (whats implied in Myth 3).
Phil, I was tempted to agree with you at first but after synthesizing the data that you and Frank provided I concluded that Frank is probably correct in the statistics. I believe this analysis is valid, as follows:
( 1 ) When I say black I mean mulattos too.
( 2 ) Circa 1860 the enslaved black population was about four times greater than the free population.
( 3 ) In 1860 40 % of the free black population was recorded as mulatto.
( 4 ) Also in 1860 10 % of the slave black population was mulatto.
It seems to me that Frank is right about the importance of proportion and not exact numbers. But according to these figures that you guys provided, the proportions were such that the freeing of the slaves should not have changed the overall mulatto content of the "black" population. But just to make it more concrete, here is an example:
Let 400 be the slave population and 100 be the free, then....
400 X 10% = 40
100 x 40% = 40
This shows that the numbers of enslaved and free mulattos would have been about equal, thus supporting Frank's claims about proportionality. What might explain the drop in mulattos as a percentage of the population might be that the census criteria was changed. Can you determine if this was the case Frank or phil?
( 2 ) Circa 1860 the enslaved black population was about four times greater than the free population.
No, it was more like eight times greater.
TheMulattoKid wrote:
What might explain the drop in mulattos as a percentage of the population might be that the census criteria was changed. Can you determine if this was the case Frank or phil?
There is no doubt at all that the criteria changed wildly by region and over time. How else can you explain the sharp national drop in number of "mulattos" from 1910 to 1920? Also, the B/W intermarriage rate in 1850 and 1860 New England (MA, CT, NH, RI) was much higher than in the midwest (OH, IN, IL, MO). And yet, while the number of people labeled "mulatto" was high in the midwest, there were vitually no census "mulattos" recorded in New England. The reason is that New England adopted the ODR (in popular culture, not law) before the Civil War.
I am presently at an airport departure gate waiting for our flight to PR to take off (we are going to spend a couple of weeks with my 95-year-old mom). During the flight, I shall put together an explanation of how the known intermarriage rate suffices to explain today's observed admixture, without recourse to subjective labels. I shall post it here as soon as I can find a hot spot after we land in San Juan.
Oh okay Frank, sorry that I had my figures wrong. In that case my explanation doesnt really work since twice as many mulattos would have been slaves as were free. Im looking forward to your explanation of how intermarriage explains everything!
The problem with relying on who the census takers labeled "mulatto" is that it is subjective, varying unpredictably from one region to another and from one census to the next. Who is married, on the other hand, is objective.
According to the U.S. federal census, the antebellum national intermarriage rate was about two percent (two percent of married African-Americans had a White spouse). According to colonial Chesapeake records, intermarriage was routine before it was outlawed in 1691 (Indeed, its very popularity was precisely why it was outlawed, according to the men who outlawed it.) The intermarriage rate fell to nil during the 1880-1970 Jim Crow period but since then has risen again to nearly four percent.
Assuming that the Jim Crow period was an aberration (as it demonstrably was by other measures, including writing the ODR into statutes and inspiring Houston Steward Chamberlain, Madison Grant, and Adolf Hitler), then a 1.5-to-2 percent intermarriage rate is the most likely long-term overall estimate since British North America was founded four centuries ago.
Assuming that intermarried couples, like all other couples, have averaged two children apiece, and assuming that first-generation biracial children have always remained in the Black community, then the 1.5-2 percent intermarriage rate means that Euro gene flow into the A-A community has averaged 1.5-2 percent of the Black population every generation for four centuries.
Accumulated over those sixteen generations (four generations per century), this comes to a gene flow of 24-32 percent. This predicts that 24-32 percent of the genetic markers in the African-American population today would be of Euro origin. In other words, a 1.5-to-2 percent rate of intermarriage alone over the past four centuries suffices to explain a mean 24-32 percent Euro admixture among African Americans today.
In fact, the observed mean Euro admixture in the African-American population is only 17.5 percent. So the problem is not that intermarriage has been too rare to explain the current admixture. The problem is just the opposite. The problem is: given the documented antebellum intermarriage rate, mean Euro admixture among African Americans should be nearly double what it actually is. Why is the Euro admixture in African-Americans so low?
The answer is that several independent measures show that Euro genes have also been leaking back in the other direction at about 0.3 to 0.44 percent per generation. (See The Rate of Black-to-White Passing for the detailed computations showing 0.10 to 0.14 percent of individuals per year, each carrying 12.5 percent Euro admixture.)
Taking Black-to-White passing into account, we predict a net flow of Euro genes from White to Black across the color line of roughly 1.2 to 1.56 percent per generation. (That is, 1.5-2 percent from White to Black minus 0.3-0.44 percent from Black to White.) Such a net flow of Euro genes over sixteen generations predicts a current mean admixture among African Americans of 19 to 25 percent. This is reasonably close to the observed 17.5 percent, given the roughness of the pre-19th-century intermarriage rate estimate.
Fascinating, this ought to throw some salt on the fields of that myth. But Frank, the one thing that worries me is the observed mtdna y-dna differential in the black community. How do we explain away the observed under-representation of white female lineages? Could this be explained simply by marriage trends?
the one thing that worries me is the observed mtdna y-dna differential in the black community. How do we explain away the observed under-representation of white female lineages? Could this be explained simply by marriage trends?
It bothers the hell out of me too.
I have speculated different answers in different writings (I am no more consistent than anyone else who is willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.) At various times in my life, I have attributed it to: White male rape of Black females. To male slaveonwers' having sex with female slaves (not necessarily rape, as dozens of lifelong loving relationships show). To changes in marriage patterns--since 1850 BM/WF have exceeded WM/BF but there are no records before for the prior period (for most of the history of British North America). And finally to the fact that the census measures socially sanctioned marriages and the DNA measures young people just foolin around, and that men are more promiscuous than women. Your guess is as good as mine.
Let us not forget who would be more prone to infantside and abortion. White women had a lot more to loose if they got pregnant with a non white child.
Yes indeed! Absolutely. Either you or AD brought this possibility up the last time we were discussing this subject (I apologize that I cannot remember which of you it was.) I am embarassed that I clean forgot about this explanation, especially during the 18th century, when infanticide by abandonment at a crossroads was the most common form of family planning. Excellent point, and I regret having plumb forgetten it.
Let us not forget who would be more prone to infantside and abortion. White women had a lot more to loose if they got pregnant with a non white child.
Yes indeed! Absolutely. Either you or AD brought this possibility up the last time we were discussing this subject (I apologize that I cannot remember which of you it was.) I am embarassed that I clean forgot about this explanation, especially during the 18th century, when infanticide by abandonment at a crossroads was the most common form of family planning. Excellent point, and I regret having plumb forgetten it.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
