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.

True

Food banks are a community staple for millions of Americans. Not only do they provide nutritional assistance to low-income families, they’re also often one of the few places where people can get non-food essentials like diapers, toiletries, paper towels, clothing and more. For the 44 million people in the United States facing food insecurity, pantries can literally be a lifeline.

But that lifeline is at risk. Food pantries rely on donations, both from individuals and government programs, to stay stocked. Rising poverty levels and budget cuts mean that food pantries sometimes can’t meet the demands of their communities—and as a result, families go without.


No person should struggle for basic needs—which is why Land O’Lakes is teaming up with Clove in the name of comfort ahead of the 2025 holiday season.

Comfort, meet comfort.

A partnership between a farmer-owned cooperative and a modern footwear brand might seem like an unusual pairing. But the reality is that both organizations provide things that are enjoyable and much needed for American families.

You might be surprised to learn, for example, that dairy is one of the most requested but least-donated items at food banks around the nation. From a nutritional lens, dairy is a source of high-quality protein that provides 3 of 4 nutrients—calcium, potassium and vitamin D—that low-income households are at risk of missing from their diets.

But on a larger scale, dairy provides comfort. Items like butter, milk and cream are in high demand, particularly around the end of the year since so many families use these items for baking holiday treats. And while shoes can be stylish gifts, they’re also a basic necessity for hardworking frontline workers who provide care for others and spend hours on their feet. In fact, 96 million people in the U.S. spend their work shift standing.

"We are so excited to collaborate with Clove Shoes and take a moment to celebrate the color of the moment, but also our everyday favorite, butter yellow," said Heather Anfang, president of Land O'Lakes Dairy Foods. "As a company who shares our values of community, hard work and comfort, we are thrilled for the launch of their shoe but also for our shared donation to those in need in an important area for our two brands in Philadelphia."

Meaningful giving when people need it most

Together, the organizations have donated dozens of sneakers and more than 3,750 pounds of butter to Philabundance, one of the largest food banks in Philadelphia and part of Feeding America’s nationwide network of food banks, pantries, and meal programs. As they team up to donate needed supplies, they’re also helping families feel nourished—inside and out—ahead of the cold winter months.

"As a Philadelphia-based brand, we’re proud to give back to the community we call home—nourishing our city and supporting those who care every day," shares Jordyn Amoroso, Co-founder and CBO. Clove has also gifted 88 shoes to the students enrolled at Philabundance Community Kitchen: a free, life-changing workforce development program run by Philabundance.

At a time when so many are stretched thin and families are moving into the holiday season facing food insecurity, collaborations like these can provide an unexpected value—a chance to revitalize local communities, to nourish families, and show how comfort can take many different forms.

Learn more about this unexpected partnership here.

Health

12 photos of women before and after an orgasm shines a new light on women's sexual wellness

"We hope that everyone viewing this project will feel more confident about their bodies and sexuality."

Imagine if this kind of joy had a bigger place in the world.

You might recall Marcos Alberti's mega-viral "3 Glasses" project from 2016, in which he photographed people after they had consumed one, two, and then three glasses of wine. The series was impactful in part because it showed the physical transformation that comes from being relaxed after some wine. That, and it touched on a common curiosity. Haven’t we all wondered if we look as different as we feel after getting a little tipsy? (Spoiler alert: the answer is yes.)

Using a very similar format to “3 Glasses,” as well as the elements of lightheartedness, novelty, and rawness that made it so special, Alberti utilizes his photography to delve into a topic much less discussed: women’s sexual wellness.


The concept is simple: photograph women before, during, and after an orgasm. You can see why he calls this the “O” project.

Despite the subject matter, Alberti assures viewers that the intention wasn’t to be explicit, or even erotic, for that matter. The 20+ women who participated, of varying ethnicities and varying levels of sexually liberated versus conservative countries of origin, were completely covered below the waist while using personal massagers.

“The underlying message: all women deserve to be in control of their sexuality, no matter their background. Women should be free to be empowered by–and have a little fun with–their sexuality,” Alberti wrote on his website.

Similarly, Fan Yang, Global Brand Manager of Smile Makers (a sexual wellbeing brand that partnered with Alberti for this project) noted that the goal was to break through stigma and show female pleasure in a positive, healthy light. The hope is that not only society normalizes female pleasure, but that women themselves connect to their sexuality without “shame and secrecy.”

Given that all the women who participated were “in awe” seeing themselves “glowing and radiant” in their final photo, as Yang put it, it feels safe to say mission: accomplished.

Take a look:

marcos alberti, 3 glaas, big o, orgasm, sexual wellness, womens sexual wellness, personal massager, female pleasure An O Project participant. marcosalberti.com


marcos alberti, 3 glaas, big o, orgasm, sexual wellness, womens sexual wellness, personal massager, female pleasure An O Project participant. marcosalberti.com


marcos alberti, 3 glaas, big o, orgasm, sexual wellness, womens sexual wellness, personal massager, female pleasure An O Project participant. marcosalberti.com


marcos alberti, 3 glaas, big o, orgasm, sexual wellness, womens sexual wellness, personal massager, female pleasure An O Project participant. marcosalberti.com


marcos alberti, 3 glaas, big o, orgasm, sexual wellness, womens sexual wellness, personal massager, female pleasure An O Project participant. marcosalberti.com


marcos alberti, 3 glaas, big o, orgasm, sexual wellness, womens sexual wellness, personal massager, female pleasure An O Project participant. marcosalberti.com

marcos alberti, 3 glaas, big o, orgasm, sexual wellness, womens sexual wellness, personal massager, female pleasure An O Project participant. marcosalberti.com

marcos alberti, 3 glaas, big o, orgasm, sexual wellness, womens sexual wellness, personal massager, female pleasure An O Project participant. marcosalberti.com


marcos alberti, 3 glaas, big o, orgasm, sexual wellness, womens sexual wellness, personal massager, female pleasure An O Project participant. marcosalberti.com

marcos alberti, 3 glaas, big o, orgasm, sexual wellness, womens sexual wellness, personal massager, female pleasure An O Project participant. marcosalberti.com

In a video posted to YouTube, we get a behind-the-scenes look at Alberti’s process. Welcoming the models in, setting up his camera behind a curtain for privacy, talking them through the process, making them feel safe and comfortable, etc.

We also get to see the “awe” that Yang spoke of. It’s palpable.

“Initially, I was still apprehensive… [with] a lot of worry. And this one [referring to the final image] is like “Ha! Life is beautiful!” one woman shared, grinning ear-to-ear.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

We can talk ad nauseam about how women’s pleasure shouldn’t be a taboo subject, about how it’s a natural, vital part of her overall wellbeing, how it can lead to better mood, heart health, immune function, sleep, intimacy, self-esteem…yadda, yadda yadda…but there’s nothing like actually witnessing its semi-miraculous powers firsthand. It’s one of the things that make photography so powerful. We feel something raw and honest on a visceral level, so that we can THEN talk about it with empathy and understanding. It’s clear that Alberti knows this on a deep level and is using that knowledge for something truly good.

Be sure to follow Alberti (@marcos_alberti ) on Instagram to keep up-to-date with all his work.





Photo Credit: https://www.canva.com/photos

A Westie dog. A piano.

Meet Bradford. He's only 13 years old, and yet his grasp of music is savant-level distinguished. He is drawn to the most complex piano chords, particularly loving jazz of all kinds. He's extremely close to his family and especially supportive of his mom and her musical talents.

I might have buried the lede here—Bradford is actually a gorgeous, tiny dog.


For years, classically trained jazz singer and pianist Kara Baldus-Mehrmann (who often simply uses the last name Baldus) has been sharing clips of herself playing piano with Bradford on her lap in her home in the St. Louis area. A Westie mix, Bradford listens intently—his eyes closed tight, swaying to the songs when he's particularly moved. Sometimes when he's so deeply into the notes, he bounces along with them and buries his face into Baldus's chest.


Many agree that the duo are the perfect antidote to doom-scrolling. On Instagram alone, Baldus has over half a million followers who enjoy her thousands of posts.

But just recently, she went extra viral when the pair appeared on ABC News, where anchor Danny New describes Bradford as the "world's greatest 'vibe-ologist.'" Baldus explains, "He seems to react in real time to certain elements of the music, which is just wild." When asked, "How would you explain the squinting?" Baldus, while holding Bradford lovingly in her arms, answers, "Oh my gosh. The squinting is when he really just starts to feel the music."

Kara Baldus-Mehrmann and her dog Bradford groove to the music. www.youtube.com, ABC News

She further explains it all began during the 2020 pandemic, when she and her husband were home most of the time. "He would just stay there during my lessons, sit on my lap, and he would sit there for hours and hours." They then cut to a clip (which they mention was the first ever posted) of Bradford resting his tiny head on the piano while Baldus lightly played. He was so moved by the music, "he couldn't even lift his chin," New gleefully reports.

It's also noted, "For the record, Bradford is not the first to love a good piano nap. I brought you a story back in June about a cat in Croatia named Zlatko, who simply cannot stay awake when his parents start playing."

Cat in Croatia really enjoys the piano. www.youtube.com, WQAD News 8

ABC News also points out that celebrities have begun to take notice of Bradford's grooving. "Five-time Grammy Award winner SZA commenting in all caps, 'I LOVE BRADFORD.'" (Adding to that, Pixar Studios, Questlove, and many other famous accounts have loved and commented on the coolness of this super soulful canine.)

The news report also points out that Bradford still loves running in the park, but on especially anxious days, "like say in a half-hour TV interview…" They leave us hanging, while showing Baldus ask Bradford if he's doing alright. She then begins to play and he immediately settles into her groove. New leaves us with the knowledge that while "jazz does appear to be Bradford's favorite, he does react well to pop and soothing classical music, as well."

As one might imagine, the comments over the years are incredibly warm and supportive. One writes, "My heart bursts when I watch Bradford. He is such a beautiful soul." Another notices how much love Bradford has for his mom. "My goodness how he looks at you. This is what the world needs — thanks for sharing your beautiful relationship."

The link between dogs and music has been studied in great depth. I can personally attest that my hound dog mutt is especially partial to Americana folk music, particularly when the harmonica kicks in.

In a piece for Mental Floss, staff writer CaLea Johnson shares that yes, dogs do indeed respond to music, writing, "Researchers from the Sydney School of Veterinary Science examined nine studies of the effect of music on dogs in 2020. Their findings, published in the journal Animals, indicated that the classical genre soothed canines, as the pups exhibited calmer behaviors (i.e., lying down, resting, sitting, etc.) while the music played."

There are even playlists meant especially for anxious dogs with separation anxiety. (These don't usually include hard rock or metal, however.)

As for Bradford, whether it's being close to his "person" or just genuinely loving jazz, he's bringing delight to the world in a time where it's much needed. Groove on, little man.


An angry man in front of the American flag.

America has never been a perfect place, but since the Civil War, it has been one where most people bought into the idea of the country and supported the institutions that keep it running. People may disagree on politics and culture, but when America was threatened, whether it was 9/11 or World War II, people came together to fight for the country they love, even though the reasons may have differed.

However, it’d be naive to say that sentiment is still as strong as it once was. Since The Great Recession, many people have felt that the vibes are off in America, and polls and research back those feelings. Right around 2012, when smartphones became ubiquitous, there was a considerable rise in the number of people who felt that America was on the wrong track and that racism and sexism were considerably worse than they were just a year before. There was also a big spike in mental illness.


So what happened in 2012? Did the world suddenly become drastically worse overnight, or had our perceptions been changed?

woman, dispair, smartphone, bad news, woman in kitchen, upset woman A woman is upset looking at her smartphone.via Canva/Photos

Why does it feel like America is on the decline?

Other developed countries have experienced similar vibe shifts since 2012, but it has hit America the hardest. Economics blogger Noah Smith explains why this feeling of malaise has hit America so hard, and he illustrates it perfectly in a viral Substack piece called “Social media destroyed one of America's key advantages.” Smith is an American blogger and commentator on economics and current events and former assistant professor of behavioral finance at Stony Brook University.

In his Substack post, Smith postulates that the technological change hit America the hardest because it punctured our geographical buffers. “A hippie in Oakland and a redneck in the suburbs of Houston both fundamentally felt that they were part of the same unified nation; that nation looked very different to people in each place,” Smith writes. “Californians thought America was California, and Texans thought America was Texas, and this generally allowed America to function.”

Why did America fundamentally change in 2012?

Here’s an excerpt from Smith’s piece. Please check out the entire piece on the Noahpinion Substack.

Like some kind of forcible hive mind out of science fiction, social media suddenly threw every American in one small room with every other American. Decades of hard work spent running away from each other and creating our ideologically fragmented patchwork of geographies went up in smoke overnight, as geography suddenly ceased to mediate the everyday discussion of politics and culture.

The sudden collapse of geographic sorting in political discussion threw all Americans in the same room with each other — and like the characters in Sartre’s No Exit, they discovered that “Hell is other people.” Conservatives suddenly discovered that a lot of Americans despise Christianity or resent White people over the legacy of discrimination. Liberals suddenly remembered that a lot of their countrymen frown on their lifestyles. Every progressive college kid got to see every piece of right-wing fake news that their grandparents were sharing on Facebook (whereas before, these would have been quietly confined to chain emails). Every conservative in a small town got to see Twitter activists denouncing White people. And so on.


protests, american protest, protest sign, demonstration, mass gathering A group of people protesting in the street.via Ted Eytan/Flickr

It may sound cynical to believe that America was a better place when people were less likely to talk to people with a different worldview. But, given how things have gone in the past 15 years, it’s fair to say that putting every American in a proverbial ring to fight it out just makes everyone feel under attack... and the fight never ends.

The problem with the Like button

Another development around the same time that many believe negatively affected the country was the development of the Like button on Facebook. The button made its debut in 2009, and it, along with the share button, which came in 2010, incentivized people to create content that their audience agreed with, creating echo chambers. The buttons also incentivized people to make outrage-provoking posts and create fake stories to go viral and increase advertising revenue.

maga, trump supporters, trump flags, trump rally, american flags Trump supporters at a rally.via Elvert Barnes/Flickr

The positive takeaway from Smith’s geographical sorting theory is that, quite possibly, many people’s perceptions about life in Amerca are wrong because we’re seeing it through the distorted, funhouse mirror of social media that shows us every bad deed in a country of 330 million people and amplifies the voices of the unscroupulous. By pinpointing the moment that America “went to hell,” as author Jonathan Haidt says, we also have a roadmap to get back to when people had greater faith in America’s institutions and people.

This article originally appeared in June.

This study is for the birds, literally.

Turns out, humans might not be the only species with brand loyalty. According to a new study, birds are just as particular about where they…well, leave their mark.

The study, from Alan’s Factory Outlet, set out to answer a question every car owner has quietly wondered: Do birds actually prefer certain cars to poop on?


After surveying 1,000 drivers, the answer was a resounding yes. And while there are a few caveats to this study, it still makes for some interesting conversation. Maybe not dinner party conversation, but conversation nonetheless.

Perhaps even more importantly—it stumbled on a surprisingly fascinating mix of biology, color theory, and bird behavior.

First off, the findings confirmed that a bird’s ability to “detect ultraviolet (UV) light” and “heightened vision” makes certain car colors stand out more in their environment. In particular, vehicles with “eye-catching” shades like brown, red, and black are often “prime targets” for getting blessed.

Here are the most poop-worthy colors:

  1. Brown
  2. Red
  3. Black
  4. Yellow/Orange
  5. Blue
  6. White
  7. Silver/Gray

As the site Carbuzz mentioned, the caveat to note here is that the results came from self-reporting. Since “bird mess doesn’t show up quite as easily” on lighter colored cars, the results could be skewed due to a bit of cam-poo-flage.

Regardless, the study found that the longer birds hang around a car, no matter the color, the more likely accidents are to happen.

Furthermore, shiny cars and reflective mirrors can also incite some damage since birds often mistake their own reflections for rivals, especially during mating season, and attack them repeatedly.

And when it comes to brands, Ram trucks, Jeeps, and Chevrolets top the list of bird favorites. Teslas and Audis, meanwhile, appear to be in the “less splattered” club (for now).

Most poop-on-able car brands, according to birds:

  1. Ram
  2. Jeep
  3. Chevrolet
  4. Nissan
  5. Dodge
  6. Kia
  7. Tesla
  8. Audi
  9. Ford
  10. Subaru

birds, pigeons, bird poop on car, cars, best cars, clean vehicle car wash, bird studies, keeping car clean Clip from Alfred Hitchcock's 'The Birds' media3.giphy.com

Interestingly, the roundup potentially points to something car folks will appreciate: size does, in fact, matter. As Carbuzz put it, the top choices tended to be pickup trucks, “which are bigger, meaning more surface area to poop on.” Cause who wants a tiny toilet? No one, that’s who.

Lastly, the results might be funny, but the impact isn’t always a laughing matter. The survey noted that nearly one in four Americans spend over $500 each year on car washes and repairs due to bird droppings. Fifty-eight percent even said their car has been pooped on more than once in the same day. That’s enough to make anyone feel personally victimized by nature.

While it might feel like an attack on human dignity, birds aren’t plotting against our paint jobs. They’re simply reacting to a landscape in the only way they know how. They can’t help it if they’re nature’s Jackson Pollocks, and our cars are irresistible canvases.

All you can really do is protect your finish, park under a covered area (not trees though!), and hope for the best. And next time you’re purchasing a new vehicle, consider a boring color.

A woman saying no.

Does telling someone "no" make you uncomfortable? Whether it’s turning someone down for a social engagement, a favor, or shutting down someone’s idea at the workplace? It’s difficult to reject someone’s idea or plan because you don’t want them to feel bad, and you also may feel the need to justify your decision.

What’s worse is when saying no makes us feel so uncomfortable that we get roped into attending social engagements that we don’t want to go to, or following someone’s bad idea at work that you know isn’t going to make a difference.


The good news is that Jefferson Fisher is here to show us how to say no in a kind way, without feeling the need to justify ourselves. Fisher is a personal injury attorney and communications expert who has become massively popular on Instagram—with over 6 million followers—for sharing tips “to help people argue less and talk more.”

What’s the wrong way to tell someone no?

@kencoleman

How to say no while also being kind. #no #kind #clarity

First, Fisher explains where many people get fouled up when telling someone no. They add a "but" to the statement that negates the positive idea they are trying to convey.

“Here's where it goes wrong, where you say thank you. You lead with gratitude first. Say, thank you, but. ‘Oh, I love to, that sounds so wonderful. But I can't,” Fisher explains. “It dismisses it. That puts it down. The word 'but' has a way of deleting what you just said before."

How to tell someone 'no' in a polite way without making excuses

Instead, Fisher said people should “flip it” by starting with the “no” and ending with gratitude. He says the way to say "no" to an invitation is to say, “I can’t. Thank you for inviting me...I’ve heard that’s a great place. Let me know how it is.”

The order in which you deliver the information is crucial if you don’t want to justify yourself. If you end with “I can’t,” people will assume you want to explain yourself and are more likely to ask for one. That can put you in the position of having to give a poorly considered excuse.

Fisher then adds a beautiful nugget of wisdom: you should be direct because “clarity is kind.”

@todayshow

#AmyPoehler says that she loves the #Scandinavian #CommunicationStyle, and #HodaKotb and #SavannahGuthrie agree that being direct is often the best way to go. #TODAYShow

What does 'clarity is kind' mean?

“Clear is kind, unclear is unkind” is a phrase popularized by Brené Brown that means being direct and honest with others—even when it's hard—is more compassionate than being unclear.

“Feeding people half-truths or bulls**t to make them feel better (which is almost always about making ourselves feel more comfortable) is unkind,” Brown writes. “Not getting clear with a colleague about your expectations because it feels too hard, yet holding them accountable or blaming them for not delivering is unkind. Talking about people rather than to them is unkind.”

Fisher’s advice is excellent for anyone who has ever felt bad about saying no to someone. There’s no reason to feel bad about turning down an invitation or being honest with someone at work. You do right by yourself and others when you focus on being clear and kind. Sometimes the kindest thing you can say is “no.”