upworthy

culture

Reid Habberts note traveled by balloon 1,800+ miles, from Kansas to Quebec.

Stories of people tossing a message in a bottle into the ocean and having it found by some stranger on a distant shore have always intrigued us. The questions of chance vs. providence in who receives the message and the possible perils that could impede it from reaching anyone at all make the whole idea intriguing. A simple story beginning—throwing a message haphazardly out to the big, wide world—can have so many endings.

When 10-year-old Reid Habbart from Manhattan, Kansas attached a note to a bunch of helium-filled balloons and sent them off into the sky, he had no idea where it would end up. He certainly didn't expect them to travel more than 1,800 miles north, to traditional First Nations lands in Quebec, where a Cree hunter would find them while out hunting geese.

"I found them on the water … about a kilometer from my camp," 51-year-old David Bertie Longchap told CBC. "I thought 'Oh what is this?'"

The way the balloons were found on the water highlights the environmental reasons not to release balloons, but thankfully this story has a happy ending.

Longchap tied the balloons to his pickup truck, and after they dried out he was able to make out the note attached to them: "Hi, my name is Reid. I'm 10-years-old and I live in Manhattan, Kansas …These are my sister's balloons. If you find these, please write me."

Longchap's sister Hattie posted about the find on her Facebook page on April 26, with photos of her brother with the balloons and the note and maps showing how far they had traveled.

Hattie connected with Reid's family through Facebook, and they were amazed at where his balloons had ended up.

"The wind was out of the north that day blowing hard," Reid's father told Hattie, according to CBC. "I figured they would end up in Texas. Not north."

Others in the Quebec Cree community have been delighted by the story, sharing comments on Hattie's Facebook posts and extending an invitation for Reid to come visit.

"That is so cool," Amanda Miansum wrote. "Tell him all of us Crees said 'Hi' back too!"

"This little guy just made so many friends in CREE NATION,💙 hope you get a chance to visit CN and where your balloon journey ended," wrote Delana Gunner-Blackned.

"Hey there Reid, you touched the Cree Nation," wrote Harriet Petawabano. "You are really popular here now, hugs and love to you ❤️❤️."

According to CBC, the Longchaps are planning to send Reid a beaded rainbow keychain in honor of their mother, Emma Trapper Longchap, who was the first of the Quebec Cree to die of COVID-19 in 2020. They will also send a photo and some information about Eeyou Istchee, the traditional Cree lands in the Quebec area.

Reid's parents shared the video of the balloon release in Kansas. You can hear his father saying, "Off to Nebraska," which is hilarious considering how much farther they went.

And in an additional bit of serendipitous coincidence, check out the truck in the video. Reid's balloons began their journey with a red pickup and ended their journey with a red pickup over 1,800 miles away.

No storyteller could have scripted it more perfectly.


This article originally appeared two years ago.

Family

One couple's perfect response to people asking when they're going to have kids.

Choosing to have kids or not have kids is no one else's decision but yours.

Photo via Carrie Jensen/Imgur, used with permission.

She’s giving birth to a puppy.


"When are you guys going to start having kids?"

Like many couples, Carrie Jansen and her husband Nic had heard this question a million different ways, a million different times.

The pressure really started to mount when the pair, who've been together for eight years, got married three years ago. While Carrie loves kids (she's an elementary school teacher, after all), she and Nic simply aren't interested in having kids of their own. Now or ever.


"It's not what I was meant for," explains Carrie in a Facebook message. "It's like, I love flowers, and everyone loves flowers. But that doesn't mean I want to grow my own. I'm perfectly happy admiring other people's gardens."

Carrie wanted to tell her family that they don't plan on having kids but knew if she did, they'd say something like, "Oh you'll change your mind one day!" and that pesky question would keep rearing its ugly head.

marriage, adults, children, social pressure, pregnancy

Dressed to the nines on their wedding day.

Photo via Carrie Jansen, used with permission.

Rather than continue to deflect the question over and over, Carrie decided to do something a little bit different.

Since the couple was adding another mouth to feed to the family, they decided to announce it with a series of maternity-style photos, revealing the twist: The new addition was a puppy named Leelu, not a baby.

pets, viral, moms, dads, maternity, babies

Look at my newborn baby... puppy.

Photo via Carrie Jensen/Imgur, used with permission.

"My husband and I have been married 3 years and everyone is bugging us about having a baby. Close enough right?" she captioned the photos.

Her pictures went insanely viral, with many of the commenters giving her props for hilariously addressing the dreaded "kids " question.

kids, choices, population, survey

The adorable pup.

Photo via Carrie Jansen, used with permission.

"If you don't want kids, don't have kids. Seriously. Have fun with each other. I had three kids early and it's all about them now," wrote one user. "I wish people would just mind their business raising a kid ain't easy and cheap," wrote another.

"I got my husband a vasectomy for his birthday this year. Best gift ever," chimed in a third.

Carrie was overwhelmed and inspired by the viral response. "Having children is definitely a hot topic, and one that is evolving in this generation like so many other social issues," she says. "It's exciting to find others that feel the same way I do.”

Carrie is hardly alone in not wanting to have kids — in fact, a record number of women are choosing not to have kids today.

In 2014, the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey found 47.6% of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, which is the highest percentage on record. Despite the numbers, however, because we still live in a patriarchally-driven society, women regularly face the expectation that they should be mothers, and they often are judged if they decide not to be.

Whether you want to have one kid, five kids, no kids, or a puppy, the choice should be yours and no one else's.

holidays, gifts, woman\u2019s rights, gender equality,

The holiday photo in front of the Christmas tree.

Photo via Carrie Jansen, used with permission.

No one else has the right to put pressure on you to change your body and life in a drastic way. Thankfully, because of women like Carrie — and partners like Nic — who aren't afraid to bring the subject out in the open, the expectations are slowly but surely changing.


This article originally appeared on 12.19.16


History (Education)

The Swedish resistance to feeding guests may not actually be as rude as it seems

A viral post about Swedish households excluding guests from meals created a flurry of debate over cultural norms.

Sweden's cultural norm of not feeding unexpected guests resulted in a flurry of debate over hospitality.

Growing up, I was taught that it was rude to slurp food at the dinner table. In most American households, if you ate a bowl of soup and audibly slurped the noodles out of your bowl, people would assume you never learned proper table manners.

As an adult, though, I lived in Japan for a year, where it is not only acceptable to slurp your noodles loudly around others, but it's actually considered good manners. Noodle slurping is an integral part of Japanese food culture, a norm that feels strange or even wrong to people from most other cultures.

This difference was the first thing that came to mind when I saw a flurry of debate recently about a Swedish cultural food norm that some people find downright appalling.

It all started with a viral Reddit post asking about the weirdest thing people have had to do in someone's home due to their culture or religion. One responder described being made to wait in a Swedish friend's bedroom while the friend had dinner with their family.


"While we were playing in his room, his mom yelled that dinner was ready. And check this. He told me to WAIT in his room while they ate," the person wrote.

Another comment followed describing a similar instance: "I slept over at a friend's house. When we woke up, he said he's going downstairs for a few minutes. After about 15 minutes I go on the stairs to see wtf is happening and they're eating breakfast. They see me and tell me he's almost done and will be up there soon."

Fast and furious responses followed, screenshots of the posts went viral on various social media platforms and the entire nation of Sweden took a beating as people berated their rude habits and lack of basic hospitality. The hashtag #Swedengate trended on Twitter for days as people shared all manner of negative impressions of (and in some cases, direct experiences from) Swedish culture.

I'm not here to defend Sweden wholesale, as I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate criticisms, as there are for every culture. However, when it comes to something like not feeding guests in your own home, it seems likely that there's some kind of explanation beyond "these people are just rude." Much like noodle slurping in Japan, one culture's rude can be another culture's polite.

As it turns out, there are a few explanations for it.

Part of Sweden's food culture is a combo of its long winters and culture of independence.

Professor Hakan Jonsson, a food studies professor at Lund University in Sweden, told The New York Times that some of the resistance to feeding guests stems from the days when food harvests had to be stored for many months during the long Nordic winter. Spontaneous dinners were traditionally not part of the culture, as families had to carefully plan and ration their food stores.

Independence is also a strong cultural value in Sweden, and rather than seen as generosity, feeding another person's child could be seen as a criticism of that family's ability to provide for their children.

“There has been a very strong urge of independence, to not rely on others’ good will for having a good and independent life,” Professor Jonsson told The Times.

(Hmm, now the entire IKEA model makes sense. Careful precision in design, but then, "Here, you're on your own to actually build it. Good luck.")

Others have shared similar explanations, saying that feeding someone else's child is in some ways considered rude, either because it's viewed as a judgment on the parents' ability to feed their children or as interfering with a family's own dinner.

"Swedes cook for the people they expect (family). Precise portions. We don't mind guests, just tell us in advance and we'll add one more. And in Sweden, it's understood, you don't eat at a friend's house unannounced. No big deal here," wrote one Twitter user.

Those explanations didn't stop people from cultures that place a high value on hospitality from criticizing the practice, of course. Not feeding a guest in your home is the peak of rudeness in certain cultures, so how could this practice be seen as OK in any way?

Part of Sweden's not-feeding-guests culture may be rooted in a history of shame for 'owing' people.

Another explanation shared on Twitter from an "amateur historian and sociologist" provides more historical context for the practice. It's a bit lengthy, but the gist is that this not-feeding norm isn't unique to Sweden, but common to Norse cultures in general and even somewhat common in Norman England and France. According to this explanation, it has to do with the historical "honor/shame economy" of Viking culture being a source of violent conflict.

"In Norse culture, hospitality (providing food, drink, lodging) was a duty of higher status individuals towards people of lower status, but the act of receiving hospitality created an obligation or debt on the part of the recipient," @WallySierk wrote. "So, hospitality not only brought honor to the giver, it had the potential to bring shame to the recipient. Norse culture, and as it progressed through the Middle Ages, was incredibly personally violent. People fought duels, violently extracted debts and squeezed renters."

"One of the challenges of the Protestant church in Scandinavia post-30 years war was to create a culture that tamped down on personal violence and civic unrest," they continued. "Since the root of a lot of the interpersonal violence was competition for status and extraction of payment, the Church, with the framing of early Protestant Humanists, began to promote the ideal of the free member of society, owing no one and owed nothing. If the culture could get rid of the interactions that caused friction, people could live more peaceful lives."

The thread explains that inequality and industrialization in the 1700s and early 1800s pushed Scandinavians to emigrate to America and other colonies, leading some people in power to manipulate debts, which created a lot of pain.

"When people were able to escape debt, they felt a lot better. So, for the sake of egalitarianism and reduction of conflict, they created a society that minimized the creation of debt and obligation, and maximized the ability of the individual/family to be self-sufficient. This 'not feeding the neighbor kids' weirdness Is about maintaining peace in the community."

From reading replies from Swedes, it appears this practice is common, but not necessarily universal. It also appears to be primarily about guests who are not planned for in advance, not a blanket "we don't do hospitality" norm. Still, it is a stark contrast to cultures in which offering food to any guest in your home is simply par for the course. The idea that you would not only not offer, but actively not serve a guest food is a complete anathema in many countries and cultures around the world.

But when you dig into the roots of why those norms exist, it's not quite as blatantly rude as it seems. Cultural norms rooted in historical struggle take a long time to change, even when those struggles are no longer front and center.

All I'm saying is let's give the Swedes a teensy bit of grace on the food front. They may come across as stingy to many of us, but in the context of their own history, it makes some sense. Plus those IKEA Swedish meatballs are hard to beat.


This article originally appeared on 6.3.22

Democracy

It is possible to be morally pro-life and politically pro-choice at the same time.

Abortion remains an incredibly polarizing issue but it doesn't have to be.

Wikicommons

Pro-choice and pro-life demonstrators face off

The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America—but it doesn't have to be.

People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On one hand, you have people who feel that abortion is a fundamental women's rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not something you can legislate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other, you have folks who believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.


Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life begins at conception, that abortion isn't something we'd choose—and we'd hope others wouldn't choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal.

It is entirely possible to be morally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice without feeling conflicted about it. Here's why.


There's far too much gray area to legislate.

No matter what you believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells" should be considered an individual, autonomous human being is a debatable question.

I personally believe life begins at conception, but that's my religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don't know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on."

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it.

Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I'm not okay with that.

a man holds a sign for pro-choice arguments reading "our life - our decision"a man holding a sign that says our life - our decisionPhoto by Aiden Frazier on Unsplash


One reason I don't support banning abortion is because I've seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.

I've heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.

I've heard too many stories of mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.

I've heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.

I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman's medical decisions, and I don't think the government should either.

pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators face each otherIt is possible to be morally pro-life and politically pro-choice at the same time.


Most people's anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don't believe that anyone's religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!" when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)

I also don't want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I'd never have to make, but wouldn't want banned. I don't understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.

Protestors gather outside Supreme Court after Dobbs decision

a crowd of people in front of the Supreme Court after Dobbs decision

Photo by Sarah Penney on Unsplash

And yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being's creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother's body. And while I don't think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn't something the government should be in the business of doing.As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God's hands.

Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn't the way to go.


The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.

Abortion rates fell by 24% in the past decade and are at their lowest levels in 40 years in America. Abortion has been legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available has not resulted in increased abortion rates. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has been falling since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.

Outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.

At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that's where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can't co-exist in the real world.

Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that's where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.


This article originally appeared on 01.22.19