 Hi, ddweudio. My name's Nicole Keene, I'm the creative programmer here at V&A Dundee. Unfortunatley, one of our co-convenants for today's event, one of the curators of plastics we're making our world, Charlotte Hale, is unable to join us today. So I am taking over, welcoming you. So welcome. Welcome to everyone in the room in Dundee and welcome to everyone joining us online. It is so exciting to have so many of you tuning in from all over the world. For those of you who are in the museum, I hope some of you were able to go and see the exhibition in that private view time before you came into the auditorium. And I really hope you enjoyed seeing it. Plastic has shaped our daily lives like no other material, from packaging to footwear to housewear to home goods, through to cars and architecture. It is a symbol of carefree consumerism, but also of revolutionary innovation. It spurred imaginations for decades. And today some of the dramatic consequences of the plastic boom can be seen everywhere. But plastic has lost its utopian appeal. Never has it been more important to understand the 150-year history of the material. It's essential yet superfluous, life-saving yet life-threatening, seductive yet dangerous. The exhibition was produced and curated by V&A Dundee, my colleagues here, by Vitra Design Museum and partners in Matt Lisbon, as well as curators from V&A South Kensington, and it examines the history and the future of this controversial material, from its early origins when it was intended as a sustainable alternative to natural resources, right through to its meteoric rise in the 20th century. Today's symposium brings together some of the thinking that we explore in that exhibition, with the Paul Mellon Centre's multi-year project, Climate and Colonialism. And my colleague Sharia is going to discuss the day in more detail and that in more detail. But I just wanted to say that I'm really excited to have a host of international researchers, designers, artists, activists from all over the world joining us to help us think through some of those ideas together. Today's symposium has been developed in collaboration with all the brilliant folks at the Paul Mellon Centre, and I just wanted to wholeheartedly thank all of my co-conveners, Sharia Chatterjee, Charlotte Hale and Laurie Bassam, for their fantastic ideas and support in pulling together such a brilliant symposium. And finally, before I hand over to Sharia, I just wanted to thank all the teams behind the scenes at V&A Dundee and at Paul Mellon for helping us pull off such a brilliant and ambitious programme. So without further ado, Sharia, do you want to join us? So thank you so much, Nicole. My name is Sharia Chatterjee, and I'm head of research and learning at the Paul Mellon Centre. I want to echo Nicole's thanks and warmly welcome all of you here in Dundee and all of you joining us online today. And hello. So most of us in the room have just walked around and seen the show, yeah? Great. So, and so today's conference, as Nicole has said, is in collaboration with V&A Dundee and the first event of the multi-year climate and colonialism research project at the Paul Mellon Centre. Rather than going into kind of a lot of detail about the project, I'd sort of point you to the Paul Mellon Centre website, and so look it up, find ways, there are lots of ways to participate and we can talk more. So for now, I just wanted to give you a little behind-the-scenes view of why we wanted to have this conference in the first place and some of the thinking and context behind it. You may have wondered what the relationship is between plastics and colonialism and, for that matter, climate. We think about plastics, climate and colonialism as sets of interconnected and contingent elemental, material and socially extractive processes and relations. While the exhibition provides a nuanced point of departure and provocations, the symposium today really seeks specificity and so through the talks, it will explore the complex life worlds of plastics and the geological and human temporalities that plastics inhabit and also instigate. Do things become obvious as you walk through the show? Next door. Plastics change how we think about scale and time. I have some images from the show that are not very good because I took them on my phone yesterday, especially for people online who haven't seen the show. So just as you entered the exhibition, as if Cannes film installation, Calpa sets the tone, taking us back two billion years to visually recreate what the proliferation and ubiquity of plastics has meant for the world's ecosystem since the discovery of oil. Plastics are clearly a geopolitical issue today, but as the first section of the exhibition so clearly shows, the search for plastics has been geopolitically charged from the very beginning, from the 19th century. Ivory and natural rubber extracted from Britain's colonies introduced materials that were malleable, strong, decorative and useful in different ways. The History of Natural Plastics, Shellac, Ivory... Sorry, there we go. Torto shell horn reminds us of the multi-species relations, processes of extraction and exploitation of resources and indigenous labour networks that these early materials were implicated in. They were shipped and sold along trade routes established under the British Empire. The very same routes over time have become sites of new exploitation, a synthetic plastic waste is shipped from the UK to former British colonies for their disposal. In the exhibition, for instance, we've seen some examples of gutter perchaw, the purified coagulated latex obtained from palakwym gutter trees, which are grown primarily in Southeast Asia. In the 1840s, gutter perchaw was found to be a useful natural thermoplastic which revolutionised global communications in the 19th century. It was used, really, to insulate underwater telegraph cables. After the first international cable was laid in 1851, communications networks developed quickly and the demand for gutter perchaw escalated. Grown in areas such as Borneo and Sarawak, which were part of the British Empire, the latex was not easy to locate and collect and it was mainly indigenous collectors who had the knowledge and skill required to bring it from the forest for trade to the outside world. The other problem was that there was no sustainable way to collect the latex. The tree needed to be felt first and then incisions were made into the bark. This meant that the whole enterprise was not only difficult and dangerous but also highly unsustainable. The gutter perchaw trade, unlike other colonial commercial ventures, was not part of the plantation system of production and the tree had disappeared from Singapore by 1857 and was quickly disappearing elsewhere, causing huge damage to rainforests and ecosystems. Although not reliant on the plantation economy, indigenous communities were used by elite landowners and merchants and became sucked into a global market system that ballooned and shrank. As British conservation mandates came down on the conservation of gutter trees and other more efficient means of extracting sap, we developed and set which set into motion its own destructive trail. The British raced ahead of other European powers and submarine telegraphy in the 19th century, thanks largely to its monopoly on gutter perchaw. So this thick black tactile substance of gutter perchaw really facilitated the modern militarized and globalized world. Let's cut to New York in 2015. A fiber optic cable snakes along the ocean floor in the Caribbean strangled by algae tapped by the NSA. This is a photograph by Trevor Paglen, one in a series built around the NSA scandal and the surveillance state. Many of the undersea routes identified for submarine telegraphy have continued to be applied with new types of cables, plastic cables, carrying ever denser streams of data. The media makes our world. It is how we communicate, represent, entertain, understand the world even. But media, as Gaitan Iheka writes, are equally tethered to social and ecological degradation in Africa and elsewhere from their production, distribution, consumption and disposal. Plastics are part of our lives and bodies at a scale that ranges from the most intimate to the broadest of the broad. Microplastics are part of our bloodstreams, tampons, diapers, furniture, building materials, airplanes, space exploration, digital infrastructure, communication, out of breath. It could go on. So it is also, as the exhibition suggests, a pharmacone having functioned in our society as life-saving remedy and toxic poison at the very same time. So you'd have noticed that the exhibition ends on a hopeful note, introducing us to new sustainable possibilities for bioplastics. So some of the questions that come up is how do we make sure not to reproduce colonial logics of production and consumption as we go forward? So, coming back to today, having taken you back in time, we're going to be thinking trans-historically across time and space, processes of extraction, lived experience, art, design and public policy. And we have a fantastic line-up of speakers to think with today. I think I had more slides. But the day is divided into sessions that are about an hour long, with short breaks in between for people to stretch their legs, get coffees, teas, both here at the VNA and in your homes and offices if you're joining us online. As you will see on the programme, we have some programme sheets for those of us here and it's on the website for those of us online. The talks are all quite short and are really meant to spark conversation. So we will have some time for questions for most of the panels, not all the panels, as you will see. And we ask our online audiences to type their questions into the Q&A box and my colleague Bailey Card will read them out. Thank you. For those of us in the room, raise your hands and we'll do it the old-fashioned way. Thank you and we can start the day. Hi again. I'm delighted to be chairing the first chapter of this symposium today and I'm going to be joined by two, frankly, fantastic people to kick the symposium off. First up, we have a brilliant human whose research, practice and writing and thinking all speak so fantastically to the themes of today. Heather Davies is an assistant professor of culture and media at the New School in New York. Heather's work draws on feminist and queer theory to examine ecology, materiality, contemporary art in the context of settler colonialism. Oh, I'm saying so many words today. Her most recent book, Plastic Matter, explores the transformation of geology, media and bodies in light of plastic saturation. Heather is also a member of the synthetic collective, an interdisciplinary team of scientists, humanities scholars and artists who investigate and make visible plastic pollution in the Great Lakes. Together, Heather is, today, Heather is going to be sharing some thoughts about inheritance, transmission, barricade. So, welcome, Heather. Thanks so much, Nicole and Shria and everybody who's put this on. This has really been an amazing event. I'm so looking forward to the conversations throughout today's. I'm so happy to be here. So, I called my talk, I called my talk, Inheritans Transmission, barricade to illustrate briefly, sorry, I'm just also going to put my phone on just to make sure I keep to time. Forgive me, I should have done this a second ago, but if you just bear with me for one minute. Great. Great, I just don't want to make sure we keep to our schedule. I called the talk, Inheritans Transmission, barricade to illustrate briefly three different ways of framing the relationships between plastics and colonialism that I've been thinking about and that came out of the body of work that became the book. And so, these are really conceptual schema. They obviously don't speak to kind of a lot of the nuances and difficulties of dealing with plastic in specific local contexts. So, just to kind of like say that, but I really hope that they provide a way of opening different kinds of ways of thinking through what does it mean to like live in this world that is so saturated with plastics and where did it come from? So, in many ways, the question of Inheritans, if you're at all familiar with my work, you may have heard me say this before, but part of the reason why I came to this work was because my maternal grandfather was an executive and an engineer in DuPont for his entire life and helped to develop some of the synthetic fabrics and also the plastic milk bag. And this is a photograph of my grandmother in her very stylised 1950s kitchen in South Carolina. As you can see, there's like, just like numerous plastics all around her and she sort of helped to prototype that milk bag. But part of the reason why I feel like it's important in these kinds of contexts to talk about this is because of the ways in which, as Shria was really indicating, there's a kind of consolidation of privilege that happens for different types of people through the kind of embodiment of plastics. So, in this case, my direct inheritance of this lineage of the kind of involvement within the plastics industry allows me to be somebody who can be here in front of you today, right? Like part of my educational privilege, my kind of consolidation in kind of a middle class household, like the inheritance that I get through the power, through the processes of settler colonialism and our relationships to my ancestral lands which are here. So it's interesting to be back here. You know, all of these things, I think, really consolidate around what I would call plastic as a kind of infrastructure of whiteness. And what I mean by that is not to exclude the ways in which other people benefit or are harmed by plastic or the kind of consolidation of those two things, which is really more often the case, but rather to show the ways in which the kind of racial project of whiteness in tandem to the racial project of colonialism is really working through this material as a kind of infrastructure. The other reason why inheritance is a conceptually important term for me when I think about plastics is that plastic is not something that we choose at this point, right? It's not like we get to choose whether to live in a world with plastics or not. And of course, obviously our interactions with plastics are very divided by class, right? Like those of us who have more wealth are able to access materials that are less petrochemically saturated than those of us without, with the exceptions of some folks who live off the land, obviously, but in most cases around the world, this is now the ways in which it operates. And so the question of what we, plastic is therefore not something that we choose to live with or not, it is a part of the world that we will inherit and will obviously be there for generations to come and the sort of futurity of plastic is completely unknown, I would argue, but it's clear that it's going to have these kind of generational impacts. One of the other things that I think is really important about thinking about the relationships between plastics and inheritance is that as plastic has radically reshaped the world and our relations to it, the question, even the question of how plastics may be modifying the world speaks to what Jacques Derridae calls the aporia of inheritance. That is, we cannot know because the questions we ask and the environments we are in are already saturated and determined by plastics presence. Therefore, we're so, in other words, we're so saturated by the ability and we're so conditioned by the ability and affordances of what plastic means in the world through everything from communications, technologies to the ability to travel to the global circulation of food and products that in some sense, the kind of questions that we ask about plastic are already determined by what the global saturation of plastic has already meant. And I think that this is an important kind of conceptual apparatus for understanding our position and relationship to this broad set of materials. So again, for the philosopher Jacques Derridae, inheritance is always in the making as it works through us. I use the word inheritance also because it refers to how structures of privilege and power are passed on again as Shria was kind of talking about the kind of consolidation of empire, the use of plastic as yet another one of the, or protoplastics as yet, another one of the kind of tools of empire, the consolidation of particular kinds of materials in order to consolidate and build up the wealth of Great Britain at the expense in many ways of the colonies. So as a term, inheritance is still primarily used both legally and informally to speak of property relations. Inheritance is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as the quote, succession to property, a title, office, et cetera, a coming into or taking possession of something as one's birthright, possession, ownership, right of possession. So inheritance as a right, a possession, and property indicates how Western modernity conceives of intergenerational time, right? And I think that thinking about that in relationship to plastic helps to make some of the ideological investments in what this material is and how it emerges in the world, not just as a kind of, you know, I think that the pitch that we're often given is that there was this necessity for certain kinds of objects and therefore plastics were created to fill a gap, right? I think in many ways when you go back and actually do the kind of archival research, it was in many ways the sort of opposite, right? It's like, it's that in fact, there was an ability to be able to make these different kinds of materials and then markets were created out of them, right? And what I'm really interested in is like, what is the drive? What are the kinds of sort of unintended or maybe unexamined ideological investments that go into the creation of that kind of a material to begin with? What are the fundamental kind of understandings of our relationship between materiality in general? What is our understanding of our relationship between nature and culture, for example, that Western modernity has really embedded? And here I think thinking about inheritance as property rather than as skills or as ways of being assumes a naturalized relation to capital and to colonial extraction. And it is about the ways in which filial relations, patriarchy and race unfold across generations, most often consolidating rather than redistributing privilege, right? And I think that plastic is one of those examples that really shows us how this functions. So then of course there's the question of like what do we do with these inheritance, which is I think part of what the exhibition is really trying to get at, right? It's like so if this is now the world that we live in and so many brilliant thinkers in this room today are really trying to get at, it's like how do we not just keep this heritage alive or but how do we kind of relaunch it otherwise? What are the possibilities for improvising with it or for doing something else with it? So the next, oh sorry, this is another slide. I'm sure you've seen all these kinds of things in many places. So the next way to think about that I've been trying to think about plastics and relationship to these three conceptual categories that link it back to the kinds of histories of colonialism and specifically from the context that I'm from, from Northern North America, to think about settler colonialism and my own implications in it as a settler on those lands is also through the kind of concept of transmission. So in some ways I wanted to have a kind of differential concept that allows us to both talk about the ways in which plastic can be this consolidation of privilege, the ways in which it's shoring up certain kinds of privilege and especially I think in kind of racial or colonial manners. But also I wanted to be able to talk about what are the ways in which we might think about waste colonialism as a kind of transmission, right? And I think that often when we think about waste colonialism we think about the end product of plastics, where waste goes, et cetera, in the world. But I think that for my thinking one of the things that's really important to emphasise is the production processes rather than the end processes. So this is a very famous petrochemical refinery that's situated next to the Amdoong First Nation in Sarnia, Ontario. And it's part of Canada's Chemical Valley. So transmission as I describe it is the differential impact of plastic pollution. So the ways in which sort of the flip side of the consolidation of privilege, the flip side of the consolidation of inheritance as something that allows us to build up wealth, allows us to have increasingly kind of easeful lives, right? And when I say us you can enroll yourself in that us or not as you think that you are globally positioned and I think that at this moment in time it's not actually so easy to differentiate between what we call the global south and global north based on the kinds of ways in which economy, et cetera, circulates, which isn't to say that those categories aren't conceptually useful at the same time, but to also complicate them a little bit. You know, as Patrick O'Hare was reminding me yesterday in relationship to his really important research on Uruguay. So transmission describes the imposition of plastic, right? It's legacies on multiple peoples, largely racialized and poor people who deal more concretely and often in an embodied fashion with the intergenerational effects of plastic and who are often not responsible for its emergence or proliferation. So transmission considers not just waste but the potentially harmful aspects of plastic that include its production, especially in relationship to things like benzene or vinyl monomers. So transmission refers to the ways in which plastic permeates every and all aspects of life on earth, but often without the consent of those people and other beings who are most affected by it, right? So transmission of plastic describes one of the aspects of dispossession and the undermining of health and well-being of communities. In many ways, you can really see in a place like the United States or Canada the kind of continued use of plastic as a mechanism of settler colonialism and as a mechanism of the ongoing after life of slavery, right? Because plastic is transmitted on to people and land without their consent and it often renders the land itself so toxic as to become in some cases completely uninhabitable as in parts of Louisiana, for example. I mean, one of the other problems with these kinds of chemical transmissions is that they are not uniform or entirely predictable. So they may skip generations or pass over a particular person and therefore it's difficult to kind of trace in the kind of cause and effect logic that we like for being able to kind of talk about the relationship of chemical harm. Chemical harm obviously doesn't happen in that kind of a way and so therefore talking about transmission I think is really helpful borrowing it from the terms that are being used from media studies to be able to show the ways in which transmission is obviously not always just like a direct process, right? It's like, you know, there's always noise and interference in the process of transmission and therefore that mean that certain bodies and certain people might be shielded from the kind of chemical effects of living close to or in proximity to very toxic environments and yet at the same time other people will be massively affected, right? So transmission is uneven in the ways in which it can be, it cannot always be easily mapped. As I said, it can skip generations, show up as undefined ailments and also aren't recognized by the kinds of cause and effect logics that we underscore how we think of industrial harm and that obviously is exacerbated by things like cocktail effects where these chemicals are not just happening in a kind of laboratory situation but are of course interacting with everything else that is already in our environment. So transmission, as I propose it, is not meant as a kind of other side of a binary to inheritance but more like a dialectic where they merge into each other and are not necessarily so clear cut because I think a lot of us both benefit from and are subjected to the kind of transmission of plastics at the same time but I wanted to be able to have a kind of conceptual differentiation in order to be able to do things like attribute blame or attribute responsibility, maybe blame is a bit of a harsh word but attribute responsibility, attribute, and also be able to talk simultaneously about the ways in which this particular set of materials is often an imposition even if it then becomes a useful imposition under certain circumstances. So the final... Oh, and this is one of the examples of a community that has been undermined by particularly PVC production but this is Mosfill in southern Louisiana and the photograph is taken by Courtney Desiree Morris whose maternal lineage is from this place and it's one of these examples of a community that was completely a thriving community for generations, hundreds of years, a primarily black community that has been undermined and rendered toxic to the point at which most people were forced to leave. So you can really see the ongoing mechanisms of colonialism through the production of plastics in the examples of these really horrible cases of environmental racism. So the last way in which I wanted to think through the kind of links between, conceptually links through the links between plastics and colonialism was through this notion of barricade. So transmission works only in relation to the idea of barricade, I would argue, right? You don't get an idea like you can just transmit the effects of chemical saturation or chemical harm onto other people without some kind of logic that assumes that the people doing this are somehow going to be safe themselves, right? Where some bodies are supposedly shielded from the harmful effects of chemical saturation. But I also think that when we think about plastics, one of the things we really think about is this kind of idea of plastic packaging or in this case the kind of wrapping of an entire house with Tyvek where plastics often used as a kind of shield or as a barrier, right? And we think of it as this kind of protective coating that we can then kind of interact with the world in a way that feels safer, in a way that feels like it's less subject to kind of processes of death or decay, in a way that like literally shields ourselves off from the world around us. And of course, into some extent this is true, we saw this all in relationship to some of the uses of, for example, the really important uses of masks during the pandemic, in the ongoing pandemic. But we can also see the ways in which that ideology of barricade is part of what is the underlying condition of the proliferation of plastics to begin with. We can also see this in sort of very ironic or absurd fashion. So the ways in which, for example, art historian, Kirsty Robertson talks about petrochemicals, or sort of petro textiles, which are paradoxically used to keep oil workers safe. So oil workers who work on, this is a hazmat suit made for children by the artist Marina Serco. But Kirsty Robertson talks about the ways in which often oil workers are meant to wear all kinds of protective clothing themselves made out of different kinds of synthetic materials that are then saturated in flame retardants. Again, another petrochemical in order to shield themselves from the potentially harmful effects of their job, which is working in the oil industry. So you can just see the layers and layers and absurd layers upon which we're using oil to protect ourselves from the chemicals and the hazards of oil. And I think that within this kind of logic of the barricade, there's what Rachel Lee calls the fiction of comfort. So this claim is, and she says, I'm just gonna quote her, my claim here is that this border wall thinking, this thinking that allows us to believe that if we can somehow shield ourselves off, we will not actually be subject to the effects of the harms of plastic exposure or the kind of separation of warfare chemical exposure from everyday domestic industrial exposure. That this not only is a fundamental misunderstanding of the actions of chemical toxicants as they wend their way through ecological systems, through soil, surface, groundwater, air and bioaccumulation and non-human to human species dwelling in those spaces. But more importantly, she says that it offers a fiction of comfort for elite subjects of the global north. That fiction of comfort involves imagining themselves geographically protected from the toxicant spillovers and secondary contaminants that will occur over there in some foreign country or foreign territory to foreign bodies, to bodies that don't look like mine and not also here in the homeland, which of course is a completely mythological way of thinking. Like it's not like the chemicals themselves actually have this kind of understanding of the ways in which human geographies are constituted. But of course, at the same time, there obviously is a way in which these kinds of chemicals are intentionally used as means of dispossession and means of ongoing settler colonialism. So in some ways, I think that what's really important in the kind of logic of the barricade is to both understand the ways in which it actually does function and the way that it simultaneously breaks down under the conditions of the ways in which chemicals actually do saturate the world and flow through the world. But I think it is this fiction of the possibility of sealing off that creates the violence of plastic as it becomes so widely dispersed. I mean, I think that if we fundamentally really believed that any chemical we put out into the world was gonna come back into our own bodies, that we would have a radically different understanding of what it was acceptable to put out into the world, right? So just briefly to conclude, I just wanna say that one of the kind of openings there then would be an opening to a different kind of material ethics, which becomes possible when we take seriously, for example, what Stacey Olimo has called transcorporeality. In other words, if we refuse the fiction of comfort and understand that whatever harms are put into the world will come back to haunt us, to inhabit our bodies, to inhabit generations to come, in opposition to a kind of individual, liberal environmental greenwashing that promotes either a kind of nimby politics or a politics that stresses consumer redemption. So thanks so much. The next person that's gonna join us is Alia Fareed and she's a Kuwaiti Puerto Rican artist who works in film and sculpture to give visibility to not commonly recognized histories. I saw Alia's exhibition in lieu of what is in Basel last year when I was there for the opening of our exhibition, Plastic Remaking Our World, which was at Vitra before it came here and then goes to Matt in Lisbon after. I was really struck when I saw the exhibition by the really clear connections between unpacking colonial histories through materials, through thoughts on water as a political actor in the Arab region, and I left with an understanding of plastic as a really key enabler to the weaponization of water as well as a facilitated to the access of this basic human need. And these ideas really resonated deeply with the ideas that we explore in the exhibition in trying to unpack the kind of complexities in the promise and the problem of plastic and how that impacts people across the world. And that is why I was so keen to have Alia here with us today and I'm so excited to have her here with us today. Before she joins us, we're just gonna watch a little bit of a snippet of one of the films that she's made, which is a part of the wider body of that series that I saw in Basel, but I actually haven't seen this film specifically, so I'm quite excited to see it. So if we get that film up and then when that's finished, Alia's gonna come up and join us and present. Dweud me nhw? Bech semyr yw weith amr. Yb haes sawb? Ynna, chythu'r un. Chwad, tawel sylwyd. Bech mech sef. Mech sef? Dwi'n mewn i'n baid. Ymwad. Ymwad? Parad. Tadad? Ymwad? Chwad. Shyn? Chwad, chwad. Chwad? Mewn baid? Yw agwb. Olla. Chwathur bewyd, fasawd. Yn dweud? Baid? Na, na, gwnna. Chwwyd? Chwyd, chwyd baid yw a chwyd. Chwyd? Chwyd. Chwyd. Chwyd. Chwyd. Chwyd. Yn dweud? Chwyd. Chwyd. Chwyd. Chwyd. Chwyd. Chwyd. Chwyd. Raibad hefyd. Yn dialectw IH. itha bhe 축 meeca. Bonjour, Cheyenne. Teni i bwyswch ygoel. Yn falwch gade unrhyw bod eutol hut oed. Tharaetol chem a gdoedd. Itha gade unrhyw unrhyw! Yn tydd eich chi? Haen, ship..... Haen, Haen.... Haen.... Minwmaill yn rhaibwb. Haen .... haen....... Mae'i sbos, mae'n sbos. Mae'n bwys wneud. Mae'n fathio. A wneud, mae'n fathio. Maeín fathio. Haen.... Haen, Hadell Haen. Haen.... haen. Be siar. Be sabaith. Zamel. O, rhaid i'n gwylltwb hefyd. Maen nhw'n teisach. Be hydi. La, sami, sami. Sami? Maen nhw'n teisach. Rhaid i'n bwys mewn haleis? Rha? Rhaid i'n bwys mewn haleis? Rhaid i'n bwys mewn haleis? Sami? Rhaid i'n bwys mewn haleis? Rhaid i'w borders? Benark. Ben-reib? Ben-reib. Ben-reib.部wys mewn haleis? Abdu Lhasyad. Gys mewn haleis? No. 그렇죠a felly mor. Ho tourism? Have a little boib double handk Up-Down. Boib? No. Hawnch. Mae tu chi'n zenereth i eisell y gwaith. Rhaid diodd nith 당신yni. Na nith? Gyfwyr yma? Cyfwyr yma. Cymru? Gyfwyr yma. Cyfwyr. Cyfwyr a gyfwyr? Mae hanes yn ei ddod i'r cwymru. Mae hwnnw i'r ddod i'r cyfrannu'r cyfrannu? Mae hwnnw i'r cyfrannu? Mae hwnnw i'r cyfrannu? Mae hwnnw i'r cyfrannu. Mae hwnnw i'r cyfrannu. Mae'r brach yn ddim yn ymwneud. Abydd. Abydd. Aziz. Aziz. Aziz. Mae'n mawr hynny. Ffaluwch. Ffaluwch.