upworthy
Add Upworthy to your Google News feed.
Google News Button
Culture

Still think the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery? The Confederate states would disagree.

Still think the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery? The Confederate states would disagree.

Was the Civil War fought over slavery or states' rights? People love to debate this question, and many seem to believe it's a matter of opinion.


But the truth is there's no debate to be had. We don't have to conjecture. We know that the Confederate states' primary motive was maintaining the right to enslave black people because they said so themselves.

We have the primary documents that explain, in detail, why Confederates wanted to break off from the U.S., and they are eye-opening to say the least. Even those who already understand slavery to be the primary cause of the Civil War may be shocked to see how blatantly and proudly the Southern states announced their intention to defend white supremacy and their right to own black people.

MARCH 21, 1861 SPEECH BY VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY, ALEXANDER STEPHENS

First let's take a look at a speech given by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, just a few weeks before the Civil War officially began. After describing some details of the Confederacy's Constitution, Vice President Stephens stated that slavery was the "immediate cause" of the South's "revolution."

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution, African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact."

I mean, he said it right there. Slavery of black people was the "immediate cause" of secession and the impending war.

But he didn't stop there. No, he laid out the entire racist foundation of the new government in no uncertain terms.

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away . . . Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Hmmm, so the South literally founded the Confederate government on the idea that slavery wasn't just acceptable, but that black people were actually supposed to be enslaved. This was stated plainly and proudly.

Need a moment? Yeah, me too. Take a deep breath, because we're just getting going here.

RELATED: This West Point colonel will tell you what the Civil War was really about.

Moving on, Stephens called the Northern abolitionists "fanatics," saying, "They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. . . ."

There's more.

"With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

Stephens then went on to explain how God designed humanity so that one race would be subordinate to another, and that going against slavery is going against "the ordinance of the Creator."

It seriously could not be more clear: The Confederates were proud white supremacists who wanted to build a country around that ideal.

Lest anyone argue that this was just one speech or just one man's opinion, or that maybe Stephens didn't speak for the whole Confederacy (despite being Vice President of it), let's look at what the Confederate states themselves said.

DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES OF SECEDING STATES, 1861

In addition to the Ordinances of Secession announcing the departure of each of the Confederate states from the U.S., a handful of Southern states issued a Declaration of the Causes of Seceding States, explaining in detail why they felt they needed to leave the Union.

You can read the document in its entirety here, but let's take a look at some highlights. (The first thing to note is that some iteration of the word "slave" appears 83 times in these declarations. So, yeah.)

GEORGIA

Right out of the gate, Georgia let everyone know that slavery is at the forefront of its concerns. The second sentence of their declaration reads:

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Okay then.

As we read through Georgia's lengthy history lesson of how the states got to this point, it's worth noting that they rarely referred to the "Northern" and "Southern" states. Instead, they referred to "non-slaveholding states" and "slave-holding states." That alone ought to be a clue as to their motivations.

But if that's not enough, here's where Georgia stated that the Republican Party's anti-slavery stance justified its decision to leave the Union.

"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."

Finally, they summed up how racial equality and the prohibition of slavery, being the primary concern of the non-slaveholding states, was something they simply would not abide.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us."

Thank you, Georgia, for clarifying your position.

MISSISSIPPI

Again, right out the gate, Mississippi told everyone that slavery is their main reason for seceding. Here's how their declaration begins, no sentences skipped:

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world."

Once they made that clear, they explained how they simply couldn't live without slavery because black people were made to tend their crops.

"Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."

Mississippi just stated that their only choices were to give up slavery or secede. And if that still seems unclear somehow, here are some of the "facts" they included for why they couldn't stay in the Union:

"It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction."

"It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."

"It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."

"It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."

"It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists."

How can anyone say that the war wasn't about slavery at this point?

SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina's declaration started off sounding like it was all about "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES," as they used that all-caps phrase repeatedly in recounting the history of why the colonies broke off from England. But when they got into their specific grievances with the Union, guess what they complained about. Yup, slavery.

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

They went on and on about non-slaveholding states trying to control their "property" and "institutions." We could guess what they meant by that, but we don't have to because they told us.

"Those States have assume [sic] the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

They even got specific about states that passed anti-slavery laws, which they claimed went against the Constitution.

"The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

Again, South Carolina was clear that the North's hostility toward slavery was what drove them to break away, thereby leading to war.

TEXAS

Ah, Texas. If you thought the deep south was the only place that gleefully celebrated the enslavement of black people, take a look at the Lone Star State's declaration. It's a doozy.

RELATED: A school assignment asked for 3 benefits of slavery. This kid gave the only good answer.

First, here's how Texas described being accepted into the Confederacy:

"She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery—the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

So, not only is white people enslaving black people fine and dandy—it's a subjugation that should go on forever and ever. Got it.

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Sorry, I need to pause for a second. "Their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery"? And "the debasing doctrine of equality of all men"? The state of Texas said here that equality was not just unnatural but against God's law. We all know that racism was the standard of the day, but I don't think most of us were taught how deeply held these white supremacist beliefs were in the South's own words.

And again, they weren't done.

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

Still not done...

"That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

"Mutually beneficial to both bond and free." Oh yes, those lucky slaves, living just as the Almighty intended.

If you wonder why people see the Confederate flag as a racist symbol, this is why. If you wonder why honoring the leaders of the Confederacy with monuments and holidays is horrifically problematic, this is why.

We have it straight from the Confederates' mouths. The Civil War was fought because the South wanted the right to keep slavery and the North wanted to abolish it. People can say it was about states' rights, but it's disingenuous to omit the primary moral, political, and economic right the South was fighting to maintain—the legal and systematic subjugation and enslavement of black people.

They seriously could not have been any clearer about it.

dance, motherhood, mommy daughter dance, mother daughter relationship, parenting, wholesome
Umi4ika/Youtube

Svetlana Putintseva with her daughter Masha.

In 2005 at only 18 years old, Russian rhythmic gymnast Svetlana Putintseva became a world champion, after which she retired and eventually became a mom. Then, in 2011, Putintseva came out of retirement for one special Gala performance.

Little did anyone know that her then two-year-old daughter named Masha would be the key to making that performance so special.


As the story goes, the young child refused to leave her side that night. But rather than stopping the performance, Putintseva did what so many incredible moms do: she masterfully held space for two different identities.

As we see in the video below, Putintseva simply brought Masha onto the dance floor and incorporated her into the routine—holding and comforting her at times, performing impressive moves while she ran around at others…letting it all become a lively, endearing interaction rather than a rote routine. It became something really touching:

Watch:

Now, a bit of fact-checking as this video has once again started going viral. Despite what many captions say, Putintseva‘s daughter was likely always a planned part of the performance (the tiny leotard is a bit of a giveaway). But that doesn’t really take away from the message behind it: motherhood weaves another soul into one's identity, forever. And one of the biggest lessons it teaches is how to hold someone else steady, all while becoming ourselves.

Every day, moms are engaging in a similar type of “dance”: navigating through the world while guiding and nurturing their little ones. It probably doesn't always feel quite as graceful as what Putintseva put out, and, yet, it is just as beautiful.

dance, motherhood, mommy daughter dance, mother daughter relationship, parenting, wholesome A mother hugging her daughter.Photo credit: Canva

Maybe so many thought it was an improvised moment because improvising is a very real parent superpower. That’s certainly the takeaway we get from some of these lovely comments:

“You cannot control life but you can learn to dance with it. 🤍”

"This is beyond beautiful. 🥲"

“If this isn't a metaphor for motherhood. We improvise so much.”

“A mother’s unconditional love 🥹❤️ She just made my whole month.”

“I do this sometimes while deejaying. My daughter comes up so I hit the slicer and let her chop it up. A few chops and she is happy and goes about her business. 🥰”

“I can see my daughter doing this to me soon whenever I get up on stage on perform. She already stares long and hard at me whenever I am onnstage singing. She doesn't take her eyes off me. Sure she would be running up to stand with me when she starts walking 😂😂 i look forward to it tho”

“Sobbing 😭😭😭😭 As a dancer who hasn’t performed since having a kid, this inspires me in so many ways 🥹🥹 So beautiful and it’s clear that she admires her mom so much 🥰”

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Though not much is written on Putintseva following this performance, one blog post says that Masha has followed in her footsteps by getting into rhythmic gymnastics. Maybe it all started with this one performance. ❤️

bridgerton, bridgerton season 4, bridgerton season 4 premiere, bridgerton contest, netflix, television, pop culture
Still Watching Netflix/ Youtube

Some hidden-in-plain sights wigs (left) Sarah's surprised reaction (right)

There’s no such thing as a casual Bridgerton fan and the creators of Bridgerton know it. So, as the latest season approached, it was announced that one lucky winner (or “diamond of the season,” better yet) would mark the occasion with the surprise of a lifetime.

That winner was a woman named Sarah from County Durham, England. According to Sarah's bestie Hannah, who nominated her, Sarah works with kids struggling with trauma and mental health issues and takes care of her disabled sister.


In addition, Sarah "absolutely 100 percent is Bridgerton’s number one fan,” says Hannah.

Assuming she’s applying for a quiz show, Sarah gushes about how she identifies with Penelope Featherington, even dying her hair to match Penelope’s reddish-gold locks. She also mentioned that she would “climb Luke Newton like a tree” before giggling, “this isn't [going to be] shown to anybody, is it?”

In the promo clip, we hear Lady Whistledown's voice saying “a most elaborate ruse” was prepared, and let’s just say that truer words were never spoken.

Thinking she and Hannah are on the way to a first aid course for work, Sarah completely misses clues being strewn upon the path, like the voice of Luke Newton announcing an incoming train, a passing carriage, and a wig shop featuring Queen Charlotte’s famously flamboyant bouffants.

Sarah even naively agrees to sign in with a feather quill, which is adorable.

Finally, once the “class” assembles, the “teacher” asks Sarah to come up to the front and write her favorite TV show on a whiteboard. As soon as she does, the walls magically come apart to reveal an extravagant ballroom with Regency-clad dancers like a scene from the series that she can, quite literally, waltz into.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Clearly at this point, Sarah (make that “Lady Sarah”) is stunned. But the gifts just keep on coming. She is then asked to make her way to the throne, where she is honored as a “most deserving and admirable person,” and told that “in celebration” of all she has done, she and Hannah will be attending the Paris premiere.

Understandably, Sarah cannot contain herself at this point. Between gasps and tears, she jokes, “I think I’m going to have a heart attack.”

The next clip we see is her and Hannah both looking fabulous in Paris as Lady Whistledown’s voice says, “ a reminder that fairytales do not belong solely in make-believe.”

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Everything about this is just so lovely, from the truly impressive attention to detail to seeing how delighted Sarah was to have her dreams come true. It's certainly the little spark of joy we all need right now.

You can now stream Bridgerton Season 4, Part 1 on Netflix. Part 2 drops February 26th.

Science

Her groundbreaking theory on the origin of life was rejected 15 times. Then biology proved her right.

Lynn Margulis had the audacity to challenge Darwin. And we're lucky she did.

lynn margulis, lynn margulis symbiosis, biology, scientific breakthroughs, darwin, darwinism, women in science
Facts That Will Blow Your Mind/Facebook

A photo of Lynn Margulis.

Throughout her prolific and distinguished career, biologist Lynn Margulis made several groundbreaking contributions to science that we take for granted as common knowledge today. For example, she championed James E. Lovelock’s “Gaia concept,” which posited that the Earth self-regulates to maintain conditions for life.

But by far, her most notable theory was symbiogenesis. While it was first written off as “strange” and “aesthetically pleasing” but “not compelling,” it would ultimately prevail, and completely rewrite how we viewed the origin of life itself.


In the late 1960s, Margulis wrote a paper titled "On the Origin of Mitosing Cells," that was quite avant-garde. In it, she proposed a theory: that life evolved through organisms merging together to become inseparable.

In essence, cooperation is the driver of life, not competition and domination. This directly went against Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” principle that was considered gospel in scientific circles. Margulis’ paper was rejected by fifteen journals before getting accepted into the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Time would be on Margulis’ side, however. By the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, research proved that the two major building blocks of plants and animals, chloroplasts and mitochondria were at one time independent bacteria. This solidified the fact that on a biological level, connection trumps autonomy for longevity. And now that fact is written in textbooks, with no real story of the adversity it overcame to get there.

While it is customary for most new scientific theories to be met with criticism, especially those that completely shift the current narrative, many have noted that sexism played a key part in Margulis’ initial lack of acceptance. On more than one occasion, she herself had hinted that women were seen as mothers and wives first, and scientists second. She recalled that while married to fellow scientist Carl Sagan that “Carl would finish his sentence, unperturbed” while she was expected to “handle all the duties of a 1950s housewife, from washing dishes to paying the household bills.”

And yet, Margulis would have other ideas that were controversial that had nothing to do with her gender. Most famously, she did not believe that AIDS was caused by HIV, and instead believed it was cause by a syphilis-causing type of bacteria, despite there already being decades of research proving otherwise. That view was seen as an endorsement of AIDS denialism, which undermined prevention and treatment effort. Then later in life, Margulis became a vocal proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories suggesting government involvement the in Twin Towers attacks.

And yet, perhaps this is one of those “you gotta take the good with the bad” situations. Margulis’ inherent contrarian nature gave us both these unfounded, even harmful stances, in addition to entirely new paradigms that altered our understanding of life itself.

And if nothing else, it illuminated the need for science to include multiple points of view in order to unlock the truth. It seems life is, after all, about coming together.

maternity care, maternity leave, childbirth, having a baby, healthcare

Having a baby in the U.S. is an outlier experience.

Welcoming a child into the world and your family is a momentous occasion, and one that should be handled with great care. In some places in the world, it is treated as such. The medical care you might need is available and affordable, the expense of caring for a newborn baby isn't a concern, and you can relish the magical newborn time as you begin the physical recovery from childbirth in relative peace and comfort.

In some places, that's the way birth goes. A video from @Anima_Honey compares having a baby in the U.S. vs. having a baby in France, and we see the stark difference between a system that prioritizes profits over a system that prioritizes people. In the U.S. birth, the mom is pushed out of the room because it is needed for someone else. She is charged an exorbitant fee because, even though the hospital was in her insurance network, the doctor and anesthesiologist were not. She is hurried back to work to pay for the hospital bills because she doesn't have any guaranteed paid maternity leave. Meanwhile, in France, the mom not only gets three days in the hospital all paid for, but she also receives a birth grant and other social security funds to help cover the expenses of having a child.


- YouTube www.youtube.com

Americans in the comments shared their birth experiences, making it painfully clear that the video is not exaggerating:

"My son and I were in the hospital 3 days... he was in the NICU for 24 hours...our bill was $40,000 with no insurance and after discharge the finance dept said I needed to pay $20,000 before leaving, I laughed and said 'Nobody has that kind of money on them, including millionaires.'"

"I had a rough birth and was kicked out of the room and the pediatrician who NEEDED to see my baby was out of network and cost almost $1000. She saw my baby for 5 min!!! It’s nuts this healthcare system."

"As a NICU Mom who is still paying off my daughter's hospital birth 2 years ago, and just battled with our insurance company to cover her recent surgery this resonated with me. Our health system is SO BROKEN. There is not enough support for parents. Especially NICU parents! My husband and I couldn’t even get the therapy we needed paid for after all the birth trauma from our daughter’s near-death experience. It’s not right."

maternity care, maternity leave, childbirth, having a baby, healthcare NICU care can be extremely costly without full insurance coverage. Photo credit: Canva

"That bit about some providers were in network but others weren't is so true. They act like you get to choose each provider in the room and not the doctor or hospital themselves. When you go to a hospital you don't vet everyone that walks in your room. Crazy!"

"Speaking as someone who works in insurance, this is chillingly accurate. You can go to a hospital that's in network, but your rendering provider may be out of network, same with the anesthesiologist. I tell patients to check with their insurance to verify if the doctors are in network as well, but even then, the bill could still be sky high, depending on how the insurance plan is set up."

What giving birth is like in other countries

People from other countries shared their own experiences with childbirth where they live, which further highlighted what an outlier the U.S. is on this front. Check out what is possible:

"Same in Trinidad and Tobago. Free pre-natal, delivery and post-natal care, 8 weeks paid maternity leave and a maternity grant."

"In Sweden, you don’t pay for giving birth and every parent gets 180 days from work. And every month until the child is 16 we get childsupport."

maternity care, maternity leave, childbirth, having a baby, healthcare Having a baby shouldn't leave you worried about paying hospital bills.Photo credit: Canva

"In Germany you don't have to pay anything. But you or the father of the child can stay home for up to 3 years, getting parental allowance. And you get child allowance."

"In India we have 6 months maternity leave, and hospitals take care of you until necessary mostly minimum 3 days."

"In Canada we dont pay anything for delivery, 365 days maternity leave with half salary or one and half year whatever you want, your job is secured, paid $500 per child until they turn 16."

"In Costa Rica you get your maternity leave 1 month before delivery and 3 months later. Public hospitals treat you like a human being for free.."

"Well in Slovakia you have 8 months of paid maternity leave and then paid parental leave till your baby is 3 years old (all from social services) and you stay in hospital until you two are ready to leave (4-7 days if you are alright) also you dont pay anything for delivering a baby and you are entitled for almost 900€ from social services, because you gave birth to a human."

maternity care, maternity leave, childbirth, having a baby, healthcare Maternity care looks quite different in other countries. Photo credit: Canva

"In México you don't have to pay anything as well in public hospitals. They give you maternity leave plus your full salary while taking your maternity leave, moreover it has recently approved the paternity leave for both parents to bond with their newborn."

"In Romania the mother can stay at home 2 years with 85% of her salary. Free medical care during birth."

Seeing the contrast between childbirth experiences in the U.S. and most other nations around the world is eye-opening. While some of us might feel enraged by our system in comparison with other places around the world, we can also celebrate knowing what is actually possible. It's easy to normalize what's normal to us, but there's nothing objectively normal about the way maternal care functions and the way maternity leave is handled in the American system. What can we learn from these other countries about how to make our system better? Let's encourage our legislators to find out and advocate for the changes that put people before profits.

jensen huang, nvidia, ai, chips, huang speech, huang 2016

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang speaking in 2016.

Artificial intelligence promises to completely upend just about every facet of modern life, from how we work to education, medical care, and the design and manufacture of everyday goods. On a deeper level, it will also change how we see ourselves as humans, placing greater value on the uniquely human skills that no computer can replicate, no matter how powerful the server.

One person who knows a great deal about that is Jensen Huang, the president and CEO of NVIDIA, a company that designs and manufactures chips for accelerated computing and AI data centers. Fortune has named Huang one of the world's best CEOs for his leadership and innovation.


Recently, he appeared on the A Bit Personal podcast with Jodi Shelton, who posed a big question: "Who is the smartest person you've ever met?"

jensen huang, nvidia, ai, chips, huang speech, huang 2016 NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang.via Raysonho/Wikimedia Commons

Who is the smartest person Huang ever met?

At first, the question sounds like a softball. Of course, Huang might be expected to name someone with exceptional technical talent or a keen eye for design and engineering. He could even point to an important scientist or a tech leader, such as Steve Jobs. Instead, Huang argues that the most intelligent people today are those whose skills can't be duplicated by AI.

"I know what people are thinking, the definition of smart is somebody who's intelligent solves [technical] problems," Huang responded. "But I find that's a commodity and we're not about to prove that artificial intelligence is able to handle that part easiest, right?"

He added that software engineers were once widely seen as the most intelligent, but AI is now challenging that idea.

Huang says truly intelligent people know the "unknowables"

"I think long term ... and my personal definition of smart is someone who sits at that intersection of being technically astute but [has] human empathy," Huang said. "And having the ability to infer the unspoken around the corners. The unknowables. People who are able to see around corners are truly, truly smart. To be able to preempt problems before they show up, just because you feel the vibe. And the vibe came from a combination of data analysis, first principle life experience, wisdom, sensing other people, that vibe. That's smart. I think it's gonna be the future definition of smart, and that person might actually score horribly on the SAT."

jensen huang, nvidia, ai, chips, huang speech, huang 2016 NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang speaking in 2023.via Wikimedia Commons

The podcast's Instagram post received hundreds of comments. "This is a very smart answer to make everyone sound like they have a chance of being smartest person," one popular commenter wrote. Another joked, "Bro knows he's the smartest person he's ever met."

Ultimately, as we enter the AI era, it's becoming clear that the edge humans have isn't processing power, but the skills that make us most human: empathy, perception, wisdom, emotional intelligence, and the ability to read the room at both micro and macro levels. Huang understands that true human intelligence, something that can't be created in a data center, is, for now, still the most valuable asset of all.

Watch the full podcast interview below:

- YouTube www.youtube.com