upworthy
Popular

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.

This Canadian nail salon has people packing their bags for a manicure

There are a lot of nail salons out there and, without word of mouth recommendations from people you trust, it can be impossible to know which salon to visit. Thanks to social media, though, many businesses have pages where they can advertise their services without having to spend a lot of money on traditional marketing practices like television, billboards, and radio. Doing their marketing using pictures and videos of their amazing work can help keep a steady flow of customers coming—but one Canadian nail salon is going with a slightly different approach.

Henry Pro Nails in Toronto, Canada is leaving the Internet in stitches after creating a viral ad for his nail salon. The video takes the beginnings of several viral video clips but instead of the expected ending, Henry pops in completing the viral moment in hilarious different ways.

It opens with a familiar viral video of a man on a stretcher being pulled by EMS when the stretcher overturns, flopping the man onto the ground. But instead of it ending with the injured man on the ground, Henry seamlessly appears laid out on the floor of his salon and delivers his first line, "Come to my nail salon. Your nails will look beautiful."

nails, nail salon, manicure, henry's pro nails, adsRihanna Nails GIFGiphy

In another clip, a man holds his leg straight up and somehow flips himself into a split. When the camera cuts back to Henry, he's in the splits on the floor of his nail salon promoting loyalty discounts. The ad is insanely creative and people in the comments can't get enough. Some are even planning a trip to Toronto just to get their nails done by the now Internet famous top nail artist in Canada. This isn't Henry's first rodeo making creative ads, but this is one is without a doubt his most popular—and effective.

"I will fly to Canada to get my nails done here just because of this hilarious video. You win this trend for sure," one woman says.

"Get yourself a passport and make a road trip! My bf and I are legit getting ours and its only a 4 hr drive from where we are in Pennsylvania. Their prices are a lot better than other places I've been too," another person says while convincing a fellow American citizen to make the trip.

"Omg, where are you located? I would fly to get my nails done by you," one person writes.

"The pedicure I had at Henry’s was the best I have ever had. Unfortunately made all other places disappointing and I don’t live close enough for Henry’s to be my regular spot," someone else shares.

To keep up with demand, in late October 2024 Henry's announced another location was coming soon in Vaughan, Ontario. Though there's no word on when the new "more spacious and professional facility" is opening just yet, customers can keep an eye out for Henry's next ad on social media.

It just goes to show that creative advertising can get people to go just about anywhere, but great service is what gets them to come back. If you're ever in Toronto (or Vaughan!) and find yourself needing an emergency manicure, Henry's Pro Nails is apparently the place to be.

This article originally appeared last year.

Unsplash

The longer I'm alive, it seems the more people's names that I have to remember. With two kids in school, sports, and other activities, I find myself trying to keep track of dozens of different friends, teammates, siblings, coaches, teachers, and of course, parents. It makes my brain hurt! Lately I've had half a mind to start a spreadsheet so I can start remembering Who's Who.

In order for that to work, I've got to find a way to stop people's names leaving my head immediately after I'm introduced. I know I'm not the only one who does this. It's like people say their name and it just zips right into one ear and out the other! And for that, I went looking for tips when I stumbled upon a good one from a unique sort of expert.

Derren Brown is one of the most famous mentalists in the world, so he knows a thing or two about people. Mentalists are a special breed of magician that focus on tricks and illusions of the mind.

They do things like hynopsis, mind-reading, and impossible predictions. There's trickery, involved, of course; but mentalists are also masters at reading people and have to employ advanced memory techniques to keep track of information they learn during their shows.

In an interview with Big Think, Brown revealed some of his favorite memory hacks; including his 'party trick' to never forget a person's name.

Giphy

The secret is to create a link between the part of your brain that stores information like names, and the visual part of your brain that is more easily accessed.

"You find a link between the person's name and something about their appearance, what they're wearing, their face, their hair, something," Brown says. "You find a link with something that they're wearing so if they're called Mike and they've got big black hair you think, 'Oh that's like a microphone' so I can imagine like a big microphone walking around or if they've got a stripy T-shirt on you imagine a microphone with those stripes going around it.

"And it's the same process later on in the evening you see them, you look at the stripes and you go, 'Oh that's Mike. Oh yeah that's Mike. The hair, why am I thinking the hair is like a big microphone? Oh yes, of course, they're called Mike.'"

Microphone Mike! Any sort of alliteration based on a physical characteristic will work. Stripey Steve, Tall Tim, Green Gene. The more interesting and unique, the better you'll remember.

There is one catch with the technique: You have to actually listen and pay attention when someone tells you their name!

"So, you do have to listen that's the first thing when they say the name," Brown says. "Normally the very moment where someone is giving you their name you're just caught up in a whole lot of social anxiety anyways you don't even hear it, so you have to listen."

Using someone's name when you talk to them has tons of benefits. It conveys respect, friendliness, and intimacy. When you're on the receiving end and someone you've just met uses your name, it just feels good! It feels like it matters to them that they met you.

"And then at the end [of the party] you get to go around and say goodbye to everybody by name and everyone thinks you're very charming and clever," Brown quips.

Listen to the entire, fascinating interview here.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Brown's name-remembering technique is tangential to an ancient philosophy called the "Method of loci".

The method involves attaching things to be remembered (numbers, tasks, facts) to specific places that are easy to visualize in your head. Imagine taking a brain-walk down the street you live on and all the objects or places you might see there. The mailbox, the gnarled tree, the rusty fire hydrant. This memory method asks you to visually associate one thing you want to remember with each item or location. The more strange and visual the image you can create, the better! Brown uses the example of trying to shove a sparkling-clean shirt into his mailbox, reminding him to do his drycleaning.

When you need to recall the item, you just take a little walk in your head down the street.

(Did you know that there's a World Championship of Memory? Most of the best competitors use a version of this technique.)

Giphy

The name hack isn't so dissimilar. You're attaching an intangible, abstract thing (a name) to a specific visual image you can see in your head and even in the real world. But that's just one way of getting better at remembering names! There are all kinds of tips, hacks, and methods you can try.

Some people swear by repeating the name immediately after hearing it. "Hi, my name is Jake." "Hi, Jake, nice to meet you!" (Just don't say someone's name too frequently or you risk coming off a bit slimy.)

Others use a technique similar to Brown's loci idea, but instead of a visual, you lean on things that are already deeply engrained in your memory, like rhymes or free-association. or even celebrities. Mary - had a little lamb. Jake - the Snake. Daisy - flowers. Tom - Cruise.

Another trick (that I've definitely used before) if you do forget someone's name? Introduce them to someone you know! "Hey, this is my wife, Sarah." The person was almost always introduce themselves using their own name, and then you get a second chance at remembering it.

A lot of the best advice really comes down to being intentional about remembering when you're introduced to a new person. Whatever mental gymnastics you choose to do with the name, the mere fact that you're thinking about it with such focus immediately after is a big part of why these 'tricks' help names stick.

It feels really good when someone cares enough to remember your name, so it's definitely worth putting in a little effort of trying to instill that feeling in others.

This article originally appeared in February

Animals & Wildlife

Why have we domesticated some animals but not others? It comes down to four F's.

An entertaining video explains why we can't ride zebras or breed "war bears."

Horses were domesticated over 5,000 years ago. Zebras, never.

Humans have domesticated several kinds of animals over the millennia, from trusty horses and mules to livestock for milk and meat to our favorite furry companions. But why those specific animals and not others? What is it that led us to those particular choices? Why can we ride horses but not zebras? Why don't we purposefully breed "war bears" to fight for us?

That last question comes straight from the always-interesting and often-hilarious CGP Grey, whose YouTube videos explore all kinds of things we wonder about but don't necessarily take the time to research. In the video "Why Some Animals Can't Be Domesticated," Grey explains the four main elements that make an animal a good candidate for domestication, which excludes bears (and many others) from the list.

Grey alliterated the four elements to make them easier to remember: Friendly, Feedable, Fecund, and Family-Friendly. Let's dig into what those mean.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Domestication requirement #1: Friendly

This one is fairly self-explanatory, but basically an animal has to not post an inherent, immediate threat. We have to be able to catch them if we're going to domesticate them, so that eliminates all of the "carnivores whose day job is murder" as Grey puts it, as well as the large, nervous prey animals that are too afraid of us to let us get anywhere near them.

wild animals, domesticated animals, gazelleGood luck trying to catch a gazelle.Photo credit: Canva

Domestication requirement #2: Feedable

Every animals is feedable, of course, but that doesn't mean it's easy or cheap to feed them, especially in large numbers. This category pretty much eliminates pure carnivores and some omnivores, leaving mostly herbivores (and some unpicky omnivores) that are easy and cheap to feed. And that aren't dangerous (see #1).

wild animals, domesticated animals, chickens, chicken feedChickens will eat just about anything.Photo credit: Canva

Domestication requirement #3: Fecund

This requirement is all about breeding and babies. Some animals are extremely slow to breed, like pandas and elephants, making them undesirable candidates for domestication. Animals that have mate frequently and have relatively short gestation times and/or large litters are more suited to domesticated life. They also need to grow up quickly, which also takes elephants out of the pool.

However, as Grey points out, humans can still tame other animals like elephants. But taming is not the same as domesticating. The basic rule is: If it's on a farm, it's domesticated. If it's in a circus, it's tamed.

Domestication requirement #4: Family-friendly

This is where the horses and zebras question comes in. Horses were domesticated in Eurasia, but if humans started in Africa, why weren't zebras domesticated first? Grey explains that while horses tend to live in hierarchical herds, zebra are more independent with no family structure. Humans can capture the lead male horse and get the rest of the herd to fall in line. Zebra herds are more of a free-for-all and they're kind of jerks to even one another.

horses, zebras, domesticated animals, wild animalsThere's actually a big difference between horses and zebras besides just the stripes.Photo credit: Canva

Barnyard animals have inherent family structures that humans have figured out how to fit into. These animals learn to see the humans who own them as a lead cow or top chicken or whatever.

Way back in the hunter-gatherer age, when humans were just figuring out animal domestication, animals had to have all four of these requirements. Today, we have the ability and technology to domesticate more animals if we want to, but we also have less of a need to. Some breeds of foxes have recently been domesticated, bred to be friendly with humans. How fun would it be to have a pet fox?

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Technically, a lot more animals could be domesticated if people really wanted to put in multiple human lifetimes of time and effort, but why?

You can follow CGP Grey on YouTube for more fun and informative videos.

@oldmansrock/Instagram

Truly a once in a lifetime talent.

When we think of badass, alt rock icons of the 90s, few are as singular and unique as Dolores O’Riordan, who gave The Cranberries its signature sound, and who was once described as having"the voice of a saint trapped in a glass harp.”

It wasn’t just that O’Riordan flawlessly blended traditional Celtic singing techniques like lilting and keening into rock music (which in itself is an amazing feat) but that her performances never compromised emotional authenticity for the sake of aesthetics. The result, as any fan will tell you, was something both ethereal and raw all at the same time.

So it should probably be of no surprise that in this resurfaced clip, presumably from the late 90s, O’Riordan’s stunning cover of Fleetwood Mac’s “Go Your Own Way” is every bit as magical. As @oldmansrock, the account that posted the video, wrote, “the way that Dolores could challenge the pitch but still stay on key, that is the mark of an accomplished singer.

It sounds dissonant compared to the manufactured material of today, where every tone is perfect, but hers is oh so human, and so very Irish! It is beautiful!”

But don’t just take their word for it. Watch:

If this had you wanting to pull up a Cranberries playlist on your Spotify to listen to for the rest of the day, you're not alone. Down in the comments, the renewed love for O’’Riordan was palpable.

“What sits deep with me is that no one sounds like her. Her voice is unmistakable. Whatever her take on a song/lyric? It was authentically, soul-touching Dolores.

“She was unbelievably talented and the cranberries are criminally underrated.”

“Her Irish vocal sweep ups are amazing.”

“She was just brilliant!!! Incredibly talented as well as a lovely and kind human being. I love and miss her. I don't know how anyone can have a bad word to say about this. I thought it was brilliant, both her live cover and studio cover. I wish people weren't so stubborn. I can accept covers no problem if the singer is talented enough, and she most certainly is. ❤️”

“A keening Irish queen. Her voice will always stir me.”

“An actual once in a generation talent”

“Also a master of the microphone. She knows exactly where the sweet spot is for every note.”

“She could melt your heart with that voice, or completely blow you away. Missed dearly, but never forgotten ❤️”

This cover would go on to be a part to the Cranberries’ third album, To The Faithful Departed, which was released in 1996 and became the band’s highest-charting album on the US Billboard 200, and was praised for its darker tone as well as its themes of grief and loss.

After O’Riordan died from drowning due to alcohol intoxication in January 2018, the Cranberries would disband in 2019, but they released their final album, In the End, that year. It was comprised of some of O'Riordan's unfinished demo tapes.

While O’Riordan met the same tragic fate that befalls many artists, especially those in the music industry, her spirit lives on in her art. Because she put so much of herself into her craft, even bite-sized clips of her performances, many years later, inspire those who listen to it. That’s something worth celebrating.

By the way, you can catch a full video of the cover below.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

This article originally appeared in February

@callmebelly/TikTok

An excellent reminder to show kindness and patience.

Listening to a baby cry during a flight might be aggravating, but it’s nothing compared to the moans, groans, and eyerolls that the baby's parents must endure from other passengers when it happens. No matter what tips and tricks are used to try to soothe a little one’s temperament while 30,000 miles in the air, crying is almost inevitable. So, while having to ease their own child’s anxiety, moms and dads also must suffer being the pariah of the trip. What a nightmare.

Recently, one mom was apparently trying so hard to avoid upsetting her fellow flight members that she went above and beyond to essentially apologize ahead of time if her baby began to cry on its first flight. It was a gesture that, while thoughtful, had folks really feeling for how stressed that poor mom must be.

In a clip posted to his TikTok, one of the passengers—Elliot—explained that the mom handed out small care packages to those nearby.

“She’s already so busy and took the time to make these bags for everyone,” Elliot said, before panning the camera to reveal a Ziplock bag full of candy, along with a note that made him “want to cry.”

The note read: “It’s my first flight. I made a deal to be on my best behaviour—but I can’t make any guarantees. I might cry if I get scared or if my ears start to hurt. Here are some treats to make your flight enjoyable. Thank you for being patient with us. Have a great flight.”

Like Elliot, those who watched the video felt some ambivalence at the well intentioned act. Many felt remorse that she would feel the need to appease people in this way.

“This is so sweet but also … kind of breaks my heart that we live in a world in which parents feel the need to do that.”

“Because jerk people have shamed parents into believing that they need to apologize for their kids' absolutely normal behavior. What a gem of a mom.”

“You know that sweet mom worried about this trip so much.”

“That poor mom probably spent nights awake … nervous about that flight, thinking of ways to keep strangers happy.”

"That's a mom trying so hard."

Many rallied behind the mom, arguing that making others feel more comfortable with her child being on board was in no way her responsibility.

“No mom should be apologizing. Adults can control their emotions … babies not …. Hugging this mom from a distance.”

“Dear new parents: no you don’t have to do this. Your babies have the right to exist. We all know babies cry. We know you try your best.”

Luckily, there are just as many stories of fellow passengers being completely compassionate towards parents with small children—from simply choosing to throw on their headphones during a tantrum (instead of throwing one themselves) to going out of their way to comfort a baby (and taking the load of a parent in the process). These little acts of kindness make more of an impact than we probably realize. Perhaps if we incorporated more of this “it takes a village” mindset, flying could be a little bit more pleasant for everyone involved.

This article originally appeared in February