+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy
More

Before Rosa Parks, there was Viola Desmond. She's the new face of Canada's $10 bill.

70 years after taking a defiant stance, Desmond's getting the recognition she deserves.

Nearly a decade before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus, there was Canadian civil rights pioneer Viola Desmond.

In 1946, Desmond, a Canadian businesswoman, was arrested and fined after she refused to leave the whites-only section of a Nova Scotia movie theater. Her arrest and the legal battle that followed played a key role in Canada's civil rights movement.

Viola Desmond. Photo by Beaton Institute, Cape Breton University/Wanda Robson Collection.

70 years after taking a stand against segregation, Desmond is making history once again as the first woman — who isn't a queen or princess — to appear on Canadian money.

On Thursday, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz announced that Desmond will be featured on the $10 bill beginning in 2018.

"As governor of the bank, I have long believed that it was time for a woman, in addition to Her Majesty, to be on one of Canada’s bank notes," he said during a ceremony. "And we also heard from Canadians who told us that it was long overdue."

(From left) Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz, Minister of Status of Women Patricia Hajdu, Wanda Robson (Desmond's sister), and Minister of Finance Bill Morneau unveil an image of Viola Desmond on Dec. 8, 2016. Photo by Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press via AP.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Treasury announced some changes of its own, with plans to put Harriet Tubman on the $20.

In April, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew announced changes to the $5, $10, and $20 bills. The most notable change had Andrew Jackson getting bumped from the front of the $20 to make room for Tubman, abolitionist and "conductor" of the Underground Railroad. Jackson would still appear on the bill, albeit on the back. But for the first time in U.S. history, a black woman would appear on paper currency.

While women have been featured on U.S. money in the past — Martha Washington briefly appeared on the $1 silver certificate in the late 19th century, Pocahontas appeared as part of a group on the back of the $20 bill in 1865, and Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea have appeared on $1 coins — Tubman's spot on the $20 adds some much-needed diversity to the currency.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew visits the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Photo by Chris Taylor, Department of Treasury.

Frustratingly, it's possible that the Tubman $20 bill won't actually happen because of President-elect Donald Trump's resistance to anything he sees as "politically correct."

During an April interview, Trump voiced opposition to inclusion of Tubman on the $20 bill, calling it "pure political correctness," a theme he railed against during his campaign for president.

"Andrew Jackson had a great history, and I think it's very rough when you take somebody off the bill," Trump said on the "Today" show. "I think Harriet Tubman is fantastic, but I would love to leave Andrew Jackson or see if we can maybe come up with another denomination."

Advocates for the Tubman $20 bills are concerned that Trump's Treasury Department may try to change course ahead of plans to unveil the new design in 2020. For now, though, she's still slated to make her monetary debut.

The important thing to remember is the role that women like Desmond, Parks, and Tubman have played in making the world a better, more just place.

Whether it's Tubman's fight against slavery or Parks' and Desmond's battles against segregation, these women are beacons of progress in a world that wanted nothing more than to see them fail. It's important that we continue to recognize them for the work they did and the sacrifices they made.

Whether that recognition takes the form of a spot on a $10 or $20 bill, a stamp, or simply prominent positions in history books and lectures, these women remind us that a better world is worth fighting for, even if that fight is not immediately vindicated.

Music

5-year-old Italian piano prodigy rocks Mozart at international competition and holy cow

Alberto has already won multiple international competitions.

Pianoforte/Facebook

Alberto Cartuccia Cingolani wows audiences with his amazing musical talents.

Mozart was known for his musical talent at a young age, playing the harpsichord at age 4 and writing original compositions at age 5. So perhaps it's fitting that a video of 5-year-old piano prodigy Alberto Cartuccia Cingolani playing Mozart has gone viral as people marvel at his musical abilities.

Alberto's legs couldn't even reach the pedals, but that didn't stop his little hands from flying expertly over the keys as incredible music pours out of the piano at the 10th International Musical Competition "Città di Penne" in Italy in 2022. Even if you've seen young musicians play impressively, it's hard not to have your jaw drop at this one. Sometimes a kid comes along who just clearly has a gift.

Of course, that gift has been helped along by two professional musician parents. But no amount of teaching can create an ability like this.

Alberto first started playing in 2020 in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Italy was one of the first countries to experience a serious lockdown, and Alberto's mother used the opportunity to start teaching her son to play piano. Alessia Cingolani and her husband Simone Cartuccia are both music conservatory graduates, and mom Alessia told Italian entertainment website Contrataque that she and her husband recognized Alberto's talent immediately.

She said that although Alberto spends a lot of time at the piano, he also has plenty of time for school and play and television, like a normal kid.

There's genuinely nothing "normal" about this kid's piano playing, though. Watch:

Wow, right? There are countless adults who took years of piano lessons and never got to that level of playing. It's like he's channeling Amadeus himself.

According to Corriere Adriatico, by the time he was 4 1/2 years old, Alberto had participated in seven national and international online competitions and won first place in all of them. His mother told the outlet that he started out practicing for about 10 minutes a day and gradually increased to three hours.

"He has a remarkable flair for the piano," she said. Um, yeah. Clearly.

Some commenters expressed some concern for the boy based on his seriousness and what looks like dark circles under his eyes in the video, but if you check out other videos of Alberto playing at home, he is more relaxed. Most of his playing and competition entries have been done online, so performing for a crowd is probably new for him. And in interviews, his mother has made it clear that they prioritize normal childhood activities.

Some children are just genuine prodigies, and Alberto certainly seems to fit that bill. Can't wait to see what kind of musical future awaits this kid.


This article originally appeared on 5.4.22

From Your Site Articles
Family

Mom's viral take on 'kids vs. marriage' offers a refreshing perspective on family balance

Parents are embracing her view that it’s okay to let kids be the ‘main characters’ for now.

Kaitlin Klimmer

Kaitlin Klimmer and her husband Michael

As many parents know, balancing marriage and parenthood is no easy feat. Kaitlin Klimmer, a baby and toddler sleep expert, sparked a conversation on Instagram with an eye-catching statement: “My marriage doesn’t come before my kids.” Her post resonated with thousands, challenging the notion that parents must always prioritize their relationship above all—even during the intense, early parenting years.

"Basically, IT’S OK if in these chapters, the kids are the main characters of our love story. We still have the rest of the book to write."

— Kaitlin Klimmer

Reflecting on an early attempt to reconnect with her husband, she shared, “When my first was a baby, our family kept telling my husband and I we ‘needed’ to reconnect and we ‘needed’ to prioritize our relationship and we ‘needed’ to go out on a date just the two of us. So we did. And I was anxious the entire time... The best part of the night was changing into our sweats, putting my sleeping baby on my chest where she belonged, and cuddling on the couch to watch a movie together.”

Klimmer and her husband Michael have been together for 12 years and married for five. They have two young daughters, ages 7 and 3, and a third child on the way. Their approach to balancing family needs is seasonal, she explains—intense parenting now doesn’t mean ignoring their marriage; it just means it looks different.

Questioning the “bounce-back” culture

Klimmer’s message also critiques “bounce-back” culture, which pressures new moms to return to pre-baby routines, including regular date nights. “The pressure to maintain the pre-baby relationship POST babies is just another example of the patriarchy telling women… no one around them should feel the impact of having those kids—including their partners,” Klimmer wrote.

Followers agreed, with @michellethompson_sa commenting, “Our kids are 1000% our number one priority, and my husband and I couldn’t be happier.” Another added, “Kids come first. They are only little for a short time—they always need you, but when they are older, it’s not the same as when they are babies.”

Other commenters, like @littlebearlactation, argued that parents shouldn’t feel pressured to choose, saying, “You can absolutely meet your kids' needs without putting marriage on the back burner… It’s not either-or. It can be both.” This sentiment aligns with studies, such as one published in the Journal of Family Psychology, which found that stable parental relationships can foster secure family environments.

Trusting a strong foundation

via GIPHY

Klimmer’s approach focuses on trusting the strength of her relationship through early parenthood. “My husband is a grown man with a developed brain. He understands that the intense neediness of young children is a relatively short phase in our relationship,” she said, adding, “If my husband and I put our marriage on the ‘backburner’ for a bit during this season, it’s a blip in the radar of what will be a decades-long partnership.”

Embracing “micro-moments” over big gestures

For Klimmer, staying close doesn’t mean big date nights but finding “micro-moments” to connect: watching a favorite show together or just chatting after the kids are asleep. This approach resonated with many parents who feel overwhelmed by the expectation to maintain a “perfect” marriage while meeting young kids’ needs.

“We are both involved in raising our little guy and try to show him what a healthy partnership looks like,” said @sashalekasha. “I feel like this has actually made our marriage grow stronger with time.” This view aligns with insights from Psychology Today, which suggests that shared parenting itself can strengthen marriages.

Not everyone agreed...

via GIPHY

Some commenters felt strongly that prioritizing the marriage is essential for family health. @lindsaylayden shared a counterpoint, saying, “Not only is it important to prioritize your marriage to keep it healthy so it doesn’t fall apart when the kids grow up, BUT keeping it healthy and prioritizing it brings safety to the home as a whole. Your kids want to see their parents happy and stable. That’s not going to happen if the marriage is on the back burner.”

"When parents prioritize their marriage they show their kids ‘we love you but our job is to help you become a great, successful, confident person not make you the center of our world’.”

— @lindsaylayden

For some, like @lindsaylayden, keeping the marriage in focus helps provide a stable and nurturing home, showing children what a committed relationship looks like and fostering a sense of security.

Finding what works for your family

Ultimately, Klimmer’s post is a reminder that families are unique, and each finds its own rhythm. While some parents argue that nurturing the marriage offers stability, others see focusing on their children as a natural, temporary shift.

"How about we not judge or assume our way is the best way at all? We’re all empowered to make decisions that work for us and for those we love."

— @bethbovey

Klimmer added that she and her husband both prioritize their children, and this choice has strengthened their bond rather than weakened it. She wrote that their united approach actually makes them feel “really connected in this journey of caring for little humans.” Klimmer’s story reminds us that the best way forward is to let each family thrive. Whether you’re a “children come first” parent, a “marriage comes first” parent, or somewhere in between, the only right choice is the one that makes your family feel whole.

From Your Site Articles
parenting
Education

Why didn't people smile in old photographs? It wasn't just about the long exposure times.

People blame these serious expressions on how long they had to sit for a photo, but that's not the whole picture.

Public domain images

Photos from the 1800s were so serious.

If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.

1800s photographsWhy so serious? Public domain

The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.

A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

"Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503Public domain

Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."

"Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646Public domain

In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.

As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

wedding party photoEven wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions.Wikimedia Commons

Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.

Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

From Your Site Articles
history
Joy

Mom nails a perfect impression of every wellness influencer you've ever seen on social media

Her dry delivery is EVERYTHING.

@bigtimeadulting/Instagram

"Memories not macros."

It was hard enough to find sound health advice before social media. But now, we are bombarded by conflicting information, pseudoscience, and product-pushing from influencers every time we open up Instagram or TikTok.

Just to really drive home the next level ridiculousness of it all, a mom named Caitlin Murray recited every single bit of diet, fitness and wellness advice you've no doubt heard online in one hilarious take.

Delivered with all the dryness of a Daria episode, Murray begins:

"Hey ladies. Have you been struggling to lose belly fat? Guess what? You've ruined your metabolism by not eating enough. You're not getting enough protein. Okay, you're going to need to take grams of protein and multiply it by the number of stars in the sky, and that's how much protein you're going to need in a day in order to lose weight, but you're also going to need to stay in a caloric deficit in order to lose weight. Idiot."

But of course, she quickly retorts, “you also have to live your life, okay. Memories not macros."

Also included in her “advice” is to start lifting heavy weights 3-4 times a week and stop doing cardio…while also still getting in 10,000 steps per day, “"Sounds like cardio but we don't call it that anymore." That one had me literally LOL’ing.

In essence, we need to "Get with the times," Murray says. Which is really simple: get your 10,000 steps every day, but don't exercise every day. Oh, and rest. “Otherwise your cortisol levels are going to be through the roof."

And if you’re still somehow confused by all this, don’t worry. Just comment “science” to receive Murray’s “six-week plan to get totally snatched.” Oh, and “follow for more tips."

It wasn’t long before thousands of viewers applauded Murray for her spot-on accuracy.

"You are ... hilarious! And yes, it does feel EXaCTLY like that! Thanks for reminding me that I’m not alone," one person wrote.

Another echoed, “The F’d up thing is that this was probably the most comprehensive and logical summary of all the shit on my IG feed these days. So, thank you? 🙃”

A few celebrities even chimed in. "Omg this is the funniest thing ever," Pink wrote, while model Molly Sims added, "You're PHENOMENAL."

In an interview with Good Morning America, Murray shared that her own frustrations with being exposed to so much wellness content inspired her parody.

"I've been consuming this content like it's my other job,” she told GMA. And during that time she had repeatedly come across fitness catchphrases like "snatched" and "belly fat," which are specifically targeted toward women. Shocker.

Besides offering the world some grade-A comedy, Murray hopes it also reminds people—especially women—that there are no extreme diets, pricey supplements, or quick-fix plans that can replace long term, consistent good habits. So all advice suggesting otherwise should be “taken with a grain of salt.”

But hey, at least you burned a few extra calories giving yourself a good laugh.

From Your Site Articles
health
Health

Reality TV takes a toll on the mental health of cast members. 'Love is Blind' alum steps up.

The reality of reality television isn't pretty.

More Perfect Union screenshot

'Love is Blind' alum tackles mental health of reality tv stars

Since MTV first aired "The Real World" in 1992, people have been obsessed with watching people's real life interactions from the comfort of their home. It started off sort of like people-watching, but subsequent shows like "Big Brother" and "Survivor" kicked it up a notch. Instead of just watching a bunch of young roommates figuring out how to live with people from different backgrounds in a new city, it became high intensity, curated living situations.

Basically, 1999 was the last year that reality television resembled a form reality. By the year 2000, unscripted TV became people-watching on steroids. By putting people on an island they can't escape while having to complete challenging tasks with strangers or in a house filled with cameras that they're not allowed to leave cranked up the drama.

Audiences lived for the alliances formed, the enemies made, the arguments, and in more recent years, the love triangles. It all makes for excellent television, but there's a pretty large caveat that seems to be overlooked—these are real people. There's a misconception that because someone is on television that they're overpaid, but the reality is, people that star on unscripted television shows aren't paid very well.

File:Real world go big or go home.jpg - Wikimedia Commonscommons.wikimedia.org

In fact, most cast members have regular jobs or no job to return to. Many are lacking adequate insurance, if they have insurance at all. A lot of them go onto these shows in good faith, hoping to find love, win life-changing money or hoping to land a scripted gig to further their career aspirations. But there are things that go on behind the scenes of reality television that cast members aren't privy to until the contract is signed and cameras are rolling.

While audience members speculate if producers are creating scenarios to increase the drama, it's something that is very rarely confirmed. But even if you're a huge fan of that kind of TV, you're not typically hoping for some sort of mental harm to come to the cast members whether you like them or not. Yet, more than 20 reality TV stars have died by suicide since 2004 and it seems no one was really addressing the issue in an impactful way until UCAN Foundation came into existence.

Bb22 GIF by Big BrotherGiphy

UCAN stands for Unscripted Cast Advocacy Network and was founded by former "Love is Blind" cast member, Jeremy Hart. who has since been joined by fellow alum, Nick Thompson. The two work with Licensed Clinical Psychologist Dr. Isabelle Morley to create a directory of qualified mental health therapists that have experience working with people in the entertainment industry.

"As a cast member of season 2 of Netflix’s 'Love is Blind,' I've experienced firsthand the abusive and exploitative environment perpetuated within unscripted production environments," Hart's UCAN bio reads. "I decided to start the UCAN Foundation to create a catalyst for change in an industry that historically has been immune to transparency and accountability in its practices."

Challenge Digging GIF by Survivor CBSGiphy

The goal is to connect reality television cast members with therapists that either accept the cast member's insurance or can provide services at a reduced rate. This isn't something just for cast members that are no longer on the show; they provide assistance before, during and after production. UCAN isn't just a mental health matching service, either; the nonprofit assists with contract review, helping cast members understand their rights and legal support if a dispute arises. The board of directors is also made up of former reality television cast members, so there's an empathetic ear at every turn.

Hart and Thompson teamed up with More Perfect Union for a short documentary about the realities unscripted TV cast members face. In a shocking revelation, the alleged mistreatment starts immediately.

Love Is Blind Television GIF by NETFLIXGiphy

"They are in control of every element of your life. You're put into a hotel room and you don't have a key. You don't have access to water unless you want to drink it out of the faucet or the shower. We're all just sitting there not being fed on a regular cadence but definitely being fed a lot of alcohol," Thompson shares with More Perfect Union.

Hart discloses an initial experience equally as concerning. "Not only did they take our phones, they took our wallets, they took our IDs, they took our passports, all in the same instance, without telling us ahead of time this was going to happen," he says. "You never see daylight unless you're allowed to use the bathroom, which is a trailer outside."

UCAN's website asserts, "While the content is enjoyable, you may not realize how much exploitation goes on behind the scenes. Many cast members are treated poorly, subject to inhumane working conditions, sophisticated psychological manipulation tactics and a threatening atmosphere—all for little to no pay. Cast members often leave shows mentally distraught with nowhere to turn."

Additional cast members have come out to talk about their time on different reality shows, which seems to be similar to the experiences of Hart and Thompson. With reality TV becoming a large part of Western culture, it's not likely to end anytime soon. But thanks to UCAN and their team of dedicated former cast members and therapists, no reality television star has to go through the process alone while the agency fights for conditions to improve.

From Your Site Articles
mental health
Trending Stories