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

'Jeopardy!' winner makes powerful statement after being falsely accused of racist gesture

'Jeopardy!' winner makes powerful statement after being falsely accused of racist gesture
via Jeopardy!

Kelly Donohue ended a three-game "Jeopardy!" winning streak Tuesday night, leaving him with an impressive $80,601 in cash. But his performances have set off a social media firestorm because of two instances that some claimed were racist signals.

The situation inspired an open letter addressing the issue signed by over 500 former "Jeopardy!" contestants.

Throughout Donoahue's brief run on the show, he signaled the number of games he won through hand gestures. After his first win last Friday, he held up one finger and after his Monday victory, he held up two. That was all fine and good. But it was after his third victory that things got complicated.

On Tuesday, he held up three fingers and it caused a lot of discussion on social media.

The three-finger symbol he made resembles the "okay" sign, a gesture that was officially designated as a hate symbol by the Anti-Defamation League in 2019. The gesture is similar to one used by the white supremacist group the Three Percenters and the Proud Boys.

But it's also how a lot of people make a number three with their hands.

The group of former contestants didn't see it as a clear-cut symbol for the number three. "He held his thumb and forefinger together with his other three fingers extended and palm facing inward, and he tapped his chest," the open letter says.

"This, whether intentional or not, resembled very closely a gesture that has been coopted by white power groups, alt right groups, and an anti-government group that calls itself the Three Percenters," the letter continued.

Donohue also courted controversy during his Monday performance by using the term "Gypsy" to refer to Roma people. "The use of this term doesn't necessarily indicate malice; until recently, it was widely used by English speakers," the letter reads. "Current diversity style guides, however, suggest that it not be used, and that Roma or Romani be used instead. Host Anderson Cooper noted this on-air."

The group of former contestants couldn't believe that both incidents made it on air because, in the past, "Jeopardy!" producers have edited or reshot moments from the show that could cause controversy.

Donohue's first response to allegations that this three symbol was a hate gesture was pretty clear.

"That's a 3. No more. No less," he wrote on Facebook. But his statement wasn't enough for the former contestants who urged him to provide an "an apology and a total disavowal of any connection to white supremacist doctrines is called for."

So Donahue responded with a powerful post on Facebook where he clearly condemned white supremacy.

I'm truly horrified with what has been posted about me on social media. I absolutely, unequivocally condemn white supremacy and racism of any kind. People who know me personally know that I am not a racist, but for the public at large it bears repeating: I am not a racist and I reject and condemn white supremacy and all forms of bigotry for the evil they are.

I'm truly horrified with what has been posted about me on social media. I absolutely, unequivocally condemn white supremacy and racism of any kind. People who know me personally know that I am not a racist, but for the public at large it bears repeating: I am not a racist and I reject and condemn white supremacy and all forms of bigotry for the evil they are. It's shameful to me to think anyone would try to use the stage of Jeopardy! to advance or promote such a disgusting agenda. During the taping of my fourth episode, I was simply raising three fingers to mark my 3rd win. There was nothing more I was trying to indicate.

I deeply regret this terrible misunderstanding. I never meant to hurt a soul and I assure you I am no friend of racists or white supremacists.

I removed the previous post because the comments were more than I could bear. I stand by the statement itself and you can find it reported in other media. I did, however, understand the fair criticism that I did not include a forceful condemnation of white supremacy in my initial statement. I hope my feelings on that matter are clear now.

Donohue's story shows that there is so much tension around race in America that it's pretty easy for someone to accidentally find themselves in hot water. Most people probably aren't that well-versed in white supremacist hand gestures or slurs for Romani people, so it's pretty easy to assume that Donohue walked into the situation unknowingly.

While the former "Jeopardy!" contestants saw Donohue's performance as an opportunity to demand an apology from him, that may not have been the best way to handle things. In a situation where things are pretty nebulous, why not take the opportunity to educate the general public on racist slurs and hand gestures instead of making it personal? Their false accusation could have unfairly destroyed Donohue's life and the unjust impact their letter will have on him is still yet to be determined. Wouldn't it be nice if they responded to his thoughtful statement with a diplomatic statement of their own and show all of us how to have a meaningful dialogue?

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
racism
Health

Conflict expert shares the 1 phrase you can use to stop an argument from happening

It'll make people agree with you, too.

via Canva/Photos

A guy having a collaborative conversation.

The quickest way to stop having a constructive dialog with someone is when they become defensive. This usually results in them digging in their heels and making you defensive. This can result in a vicious cycle of back-and-forth defensive behavior that can feel impossible to break. Once that happens, the walls go up, the gloves come off and resolving the situation becomes tough.

Amanda Ripley, author of “High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out,” says in her book that you can prevent someone you disagree with from becoming defensive by being curious about their opinion.

Ripley is a bestselling author and the co-founder of Good Conflict, a media and training company that helps people reimagine conflict.

How to have a constructive conversation

Let’s say you believe the room should be painted red and your spouse says it should be blue. Instead of saying, “I think blue is ugly,” you can say, “It’s interesting that you say that…” and ask them to explain why they chose blue.

The key phrase is: “It’s interesting that you say that…”


conversation, arguments, communication tipsPeople coming to an agreement. via Canva/Photos

When you show the other person that you genuinely care about their thoughts and appreciate their reasoning, they let down their guard. This makes them feel heard and encourages them to hear your side as well. This approach also encourages the person you disagree with to consider coming up with a collaborative solution instead of arguing to defend their position.

It’s important to assume the other person has the best intentions while listening to them make their case. “To be genuinely curious, we need to refrain from judgment and making negative assumptions about others. Assume the other person didn’t intend to annoy you. Assume they are doing the best they can. Assume the very best about them. You’ll appreciate it when others do it for you,” Kaitlyn Skelly at The Ripple Effect Education writes.

Phrases you can use to avoid an argument

The curiosity approach can also involve affirming the other person’s perspective while adding your own, using a phrase like, “On the one hand, I see what you’re saying. On the other hand…”

Here are some other phrases you can use:

“I wonder if…”

“It’s interesting that you say that because I see it differently…”

“I might be wrong, but…”

“How funny! I had a different reaction…”

“I hadn’t thought of it like that! For me, though, it seems…”

“I think I understand your point, though I look at it a little differently…”


conversation, arguments, communication tipsTwo men high-fiving one another.via Canva/Photos

What's the best way to disagree with people?

A 2016 study from Yale University supports Ripley’s ideas. The study found that when people argue to “win,” they take a hard line and only see one correct answer in the conflict. Whereas those who want to “learn” are more likely to see that there is more than one solution to the problem. At that point, competition magically turns into collaboration.

“Being willing to hear out other perspectives and engage in dialogue that isn’t simply meant to convince the other person you’re right can lead to all sorts of unexpected insights,” psychologist and marketing Professor at Southern Methodist University tells CNBC.

In a world of strong opinions and differing perspectives, curiosity can be a superpower that helps you have more constructive conversations with those with whom you disagree. All it takes is a little humility and an open mind, and you can turn conflict into collaboration, building bridges instead of walls.

relationships
Pop Culture

It's just a 2-minute video of someone mending a hole in a sweater, but people can't look away

What kind of sorcery is this?

@berdievgabinii/TikTok

The mesmerizing lost art of darning knit fabric.

For most of human history, people had to make their own clothing by hand, and sewing skills were subsequently passed down from generation to generation. Because clothing was so time-consuming and labor-intensive to make, people also had to know how to repair clothing items that got torn or damaged in some way.

The invention of sewing and knitting machines changed the way we acquire clothing, and the skills people used to possess have largely gone by the wayside. If we get a hole in a sock nowadays, we toss it and replace it. Most of us have no idea how to darn a sock or fix a hole in any knit fabric. It's far easier for us to replace than to repair.

But there are still some among us who do have the skills to repair clothing in a way that makes it look like the rip, tear or hole never happened, and to watch them do it is mesmerizing.

A video of someone stitching a hole in a knit sweater has gone viral on Facebook, with more than 17 million views on the original TikTok in August and more than 21 million views and 95,000 shares on a Facebook post of the video shared two weeks ago. Why? Well, you just have to see it.

The video begins by showing a hole in a light pink knit sweater. Using a needle, yarn and a tiny latch hook device, the person demonstrates how to fill the hole to make it look as if it never existed in the first place. Putting a patch over a hole is one thing, but this is something akin to magic.

Watch:

@berdievgabinii

#craft #diy #handmade

What we're witnessing here is a combo of knowledge and experience in the fiber arts, of course, but what it looks like is sheer sorcery or some kind of really complicated calculus problem. Who figured out how to do this? And why is it so satisfying to watch?

"I watched this whole video and I still don’t know how you did that," shared one commenter. (Right?!)

"Hey that was pretty neat," wrote another. "Can you do the ozone layer next?" (Ha.)

"I could watch it a hundred times and still not be able to do this," wrote another. (Uh, same.)

"My toxic trait is thinking I can do this 😂😂😂," shared another. (Maybe after watching it two hundred times.)

Kudos to those who are keeping these kinds of skills alive and sharing them with the world. We may not be passing this kind of knowledge down in most families anymore, but at least we have TikTok to help if we really want to learn it.


This article originally appeared on 9.24.22

From Your Site Articles
Modern Families

Do you have a "living room family" or a "bedroom family"?

This 'debate' is all the rage on TikTok. But one is not better than the other.

alexxx1915/TikTok

TikTok user alexxx1915 recently posted a short video with the caption: "I just learned the term 'living room family' and I never understood why my kids never played in their rooms when I always did as a kid."

She briefly shows her kids hanging out in the living room with their pet dog and some toys scattered around the floor, before panning to her own face and giving a sort of sentimental look. The simple, ten-second clip struck a huge nerve with parents, racking up over 25 million views and thousands of heartfelt comments.





@alexxx1915

#livingroomfamily #fypシ

What are "living room families" and "bedroom families"?

This idea has been going around for a while on social media.

Simply put, a living room family is a family that congregates in the living room, or any common space in the household. Kids play in the same space where the adults relax — and things are often messy, as a result. Everyone interacts with each other and spends lots of time together. Bedrooms are reserved mostly for sleeping and dressing.

A bedroom family, on the other hand, is where the kids spend more time in their rooms. They play there, watch TV, and maybe even eat meals. Typically, the main rooms of the house are kept neat and tidy — you won't find a lot of toys scattered about — and family time spent together is more structured and planned ahead rather than casual.

"Living room families" has become the latest aspirational term on TikTok. Everyone wants to be a living room family!

The implication of being a bedroom family, or having 'room kids', is that perhaps they don't feel safe or comfortable or even allowed to take up room in the rest of the house, or to be around the adults.

"I remember my brother coming round once and he just sat in silence while watching my kids play in livingroom. After a while he looked at me and said 'It's so nice that your kids want to be around you'" one commenter said on alexxx1915's video.

"I thought my kids hated their rooms 🥺 turns out they like me more" said another.

"You broke a generational curse. Good job mama!" said yet another.

There's so much that's great about having a family that lives out in the open — especially if you were raised feeling like you had to hide in your room.

In my own household, we're definitely a living room family. We're around each other constantly, and the house is often a mess because of it. Learning about this term makes me feel a little better that my kids want to be around us and feel comfortable enough to get their 'play mess' all over the living room.

The mess is a sign of the love and comfort we all share together.

But the big twist is that it's also perfectly fine if your kids — and you! — like a little more solitary time.

boy playing with toys on the floorGavyn Alejandro/Unsplash

Being a 'bedroom family' is actually perfectly OK.

There's a similar discourse that took place last year about living room parents vs bedroom parents. The general consensus seemed to be that it was better to be a living room parent, who relaxed out in the open versus taking alone time behind closed doors.

But it really doesn't have to be one or the other, and neither is necessarily better.

Making your kids feel relegated to their room is, obviously, not great. It's not a good thing if they feel like they're not allowed to exist in and play in the rest of the house.

But if they just like hanging out in their room? Nothing wrong with that at all! And same goes for parents.

Alone time is important for parents and kids alike, and everyone needs different amounts of it to thrive.

Kids with certain special needs, like being on the autism spectrum, may be absolutely thrilled to spend lots of time in their rooms, for example.

So are you a living room family or a bedroom family? Turns out, it doesn't really matter, as long as your family loves each other and allows everyone to be exactly who they are.

From Your Site Articles
parents
History

A forgotten feature of the Statue of Liberty is an apt symbol for how we treat our history

There's a broken shackle and chains at her feet for a reason.

Photo by Jeff Burak on Unsplash

Most Americans associate Lady Liberty with welcoming immigrants, but that's not what she was meant to represent.

If Americans were asked to describe the Statue of Liberty without looking at it, most of us could probably describe her long robe, the crown on her head, a lighted torch in her right hand and a tablet cradled in her left. Some might remember it's inscribed with the date of the American Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

But there's a significant detail most of us would miss. It's a feature that points to why Lady Liberty was created and gifted to us in the first place. At her feet, where her robe drapes the ground, lay a broken shackle and chains—a symbol of the abolishment of slavery.

Most people see the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of our welcoming immigrants and mistakenly assume that's what she was meant to represent. Indeed, the opening words of Emma Lazarus's poem engraved on a plaque at the Statue of Liberty—"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"—have long evoked images of immigrants arriving on our shores, seeking a better life in The American Dream.

But that plaque wasn't added to the statue until 1903, nearly two decades after the statue was unveiled. The original inspiration for the monument was emancipation, not immigration.

“The Statue of Liberty we now associate with immigration was a gift from France to commemorate the emancipation of American slaves. Before you lift your eyes to her torch of enlightenment, first pass them over the broken shackle and chains at her feet.”

According to a Washington Post interview with historian Edward Berenson, the concept of Lady Liberty originated when French anti-slavery activist—and huge fan of the United States' Constitution—Édouard de Laboulaye organized a meeting of other French abolitionists in Versailles in June 1865, just a few months after the American Civil War ended. "They talked about the idea of creating some kind of commemorative gift that would recognize the importance of the liberation of the slaves," Berenson said.

Laboulaye enlisted a sculptor, Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi, to come up with ideas. One of the first models, circa 1870, had Lady Liberty holding the broken shackles and chains in her left hand. In the final iteration, her left hand wrapped around a tablet instead and the anti-slavery symbolism of the shackle and chain was moved to her feet.

Writer Robin Wright pondered in The New Yorker what Laboulaye would think of our country today. The America that is embroiled in yet another civil rights movement because we still can't seem to get the whole "liberty and justice for all" thing down pat. The America that spent the century after slavery enacting laws and policies specifically designed to keep Black Americans down, followed by decades of continued social, economic and political oppression. The America that sometimes does the right thing, but only after tireless activism manages to break through a ton of resistance to changing the racism-infused status quo.

The U.S. has juggled dichotomies and hypocrisies in our national identity from the very beginning. The same founding father who declared "that all men are created equal" enslaved more than 600 human beings in his lifetime. The same people who celebrated religious freedom forced their Christian faith on Native peoples. Our most celebrated history of "liberty" and "freedom" is inseparable from our country's violent subjugation of entire races and ethnicities, and yet we compartmentalize rather than acknowledge that two things can be equally true at the same time.

Every nation on earth has problematic history, but what makes the U.S. different is that our problematic history is also our proudest history. Our nation was founded during the heyday of the transatlantic slave trade on land that was already occupied. The profound and world-changing document on which our government was built is the same document that was used to legally protect and excuse the enslavement of Black people. The house in which the President of the United States sits today was built partially by enslaved people. The deadliest war we've ever fought was over the "right" to enslave Black people.

The truth is that blatant, violent racism was institutionalized from the very beginning of this country. For most of us, that truth has always been treated as a footnote rather than a feature in our history educations. Until we really reckon with the full truth of our history—which it seems like we are finally starting to do—we won't ever get to see the full measure of what our country could be.

In some ways, the evolution of the design of the Statue of Liberty—the moving of the broken shackle and chain from her hands to being half hidden beneath her robe, as well as the movement of our perception of her symbolism from abolition to immigration—is representative of how we've chosen to portray ourselves as a nation. We want people to think: Hey, look at our Declaration of Independence! See how we welcome immigrants! We're so great! (Oh, by the way, hereditary, race-based chattel slavery was a thing for longer than emancipation has been on our soil. And then there was the 100 years of Jim Crow. Not to mention how we've broken every promise made to Native Americans. And honestly, we haven't even been that nice to immigrants either). But look, independence and a nod to immigration! We're so great!

The thing is that we can be so great. The foundation of true liberty and justice for all, even with all its cracks, is still there. The vision in our founding documents was truly revolutionary. We just have to decide to actually build the country we claim to have built—one that truly lives up to the values and ideals it professes for all people.


This article first appeared on 07.07.20.

From Your Site Articles
history
Politics

People are shared the one American non-president they’d add to Mount Rushmore

Who would you choose?

via Wikimedia Commons

Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota.

Sculptor Gutzon Borglum designed the Mount Rushmore National Memorial and oversaw the project's execution from 1927 to 1941. The sculptor also chose the four presidents who are carved into granite on the mountain’s face. He selected the four presidents to represent the nation's birth (George Washington), growth (Thomas Jefferson), development (Theodore Roosevelt) and preservation (Abraham Lincoln).

Since the faces on Mount Rushmore were first chiseled into granite there have been debates over which presidents also deserve to be on the monument. Two years ago, then-President Donald Trump floated the idea that he deserved to have his face carved in granite.

A Reddit user posed an interesting question to the online forum about the famous monument and it sparked a great conversation. “You get to add another American to Mt. Rushmore but it can’t be a president. Who do you choose?”

That’s a tough question to answer but a fun one to ponder. What criteria does one use to choose the greatest American that ever lived who wasn’t a president? More than 545 million people have lived in the country over the past 244 years. How do we choose one?

Do you select someone from the world of sports, science, the arts, literature, civil rights, religion, military or healthcare? What about someone who performed a heroic deed?

To rank the responses on the Reddit post, I looked at the number of upvotes each suggestion received and then ranked them. It’s not the most scientific way of doing things but it gives us a pretty good idea about who people think should make it to the monument.

Here are the top 20 most popular responses to the burning question: “Which non-president should be added to Mount Rushmore?”

1. 

"Dr. Jonas Salk. Saved us all from polio." — Barefoot_Alvin

2.

"There is already a non-president on Mt. Rushmore. John Cena." — zoqforpik

The Reddit user is clearly referencing the wrestler's catchphrase.

3.

"Dolly Parton." — Airos42

4.

"Mr. Rogers." — PitchforkJoe

5.

"Mark Twain. The quintessential American writer. We always put up statues of military and politicians across this country. It would be nice to see more of our creative side get honored. Put up Poe on the mountain. Attract goths to the site." — inksmudgedhands

6.


"Martin Luther King Jr." — bahamuto

7.

"How is Nicolas Cage not here yet?" — deus_vult

8.

"John Wilkes Booth but he's further back behind Lincoln." — Jakovosol0

9.

"Benjamin Franklin." — FinnbarMcBride

10.

"Sacagawea." — bivalve_connisseur

11.

"Homer Simpson." — EonClaw

12.

"Bob Ross." — j-oats

13.

"Weird Al." — OntarioLakeside

14.

"Frederick Douglass." — kade22

15.

"Betty White." — Diatrial

16.

The person who started the thread chimed in with their nominee.

"Neil Armstrong would be my number one." — taint_licking_clown

17.

"Harriet Tubman." — 44cksSake

18.

"Ronnie James Dio!" — kevinthegeek21

19.

"Maria Darlene Pearson or Hai-Mecha Eunka (lit. 'Running Moccasins') (July 12, 1932 – May 23, 2003) was an activist who successfully challenged the legal treatment of Native American human remains. A member of the Turtle Clan of the Yankton Sioux which is a federally recognized tribe of Yankton Dakota, she was one of the primary catalysts for the creation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Her actions led to her being called 'the Founding Mother of the modern Indian repatriation movement' and 'the Rosa Parks of NAGPRA." — CTeam19

20.

"Danny DeVito." — distantshadow

This article originally appeared on 4.13.22




From Your Site Articles
american history
Trending Stories