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.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity

How do you get someone to open their minds to another perspective?

The diversity of humanity means people won't always see eye to eye, and psychology tells us that people tend to double down when their views are challenged. When people are so deeply entrenched in their own perspectives they're refusing to entertain other viewpoints, what do we do?

Frequently, what we do falls into the "understandable but ineffective" category. When we disagree with someone because their opinion is based on falsehoods or inaccurate information, we may try to pound them with facts and statistics. Unfortunately, research shows that generally doesn't work. We might try to find different ways to explain our stance using logic and reasoning, but that rarely makes a dent, either. So often, we're left wondering how on Earth this person arrived at their perspective, especially if they reject facts and logic.


According to Stanford researchers, turning that wondering into an actual question might be the key.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity Questions are more effective than facts when it comes to disagreements.Photo credit: Canva

The power of "Tell me more."

Two studies examined how expressing interest in someone's view and asking them to elaborate on why they hold their opinion affected both parties engaged in a debate. They found that asking questions like, "Could you tell me more about that?” and ‘‘Why do you think that?" made the other person "view their debate counterpart more positively, behave more open-mindedly, and form more favorable inferences about other proponents of the counterpart’s views." Additionally, adding an expression of interest, such as, ‘‘But I was interested in what you’re saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?” not only made the counterpart more open to other viewpoints, but the questioner themselves developed more favorable attitudes toward the opposing viewpoint.

In other words, genuinely striving to understand another person's perspective by being curious and asking them to say more about how they came to their conclusions may help bridge seemingly insurmountable divides.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity Asking people to elaborate leads to more open-mindedness.Photo credit: Canva

Stanford isn't alone in these findings. A series of studies at the University of Haifa also found that high-quality listening helped lower people's prejudices, and that when people perceive a listener to be responsive, they tend to be more open-minded. Additionally, the perception that their attitude is the correct and valid one is reduced.

Why curiosity works

In some sense, these results may seem counterintuitive. We may assume that asking someone to elaborate on what they believe and why they believe it might just further entrench them in their views and opinions. But that's not what the research shows.

Dartmouth cognitive scientist Thalia Wheatley studies the role of curiosity in relationships and has found that being curious can help create consensus where there wasn't any before.

“[Curiosity] really creates common ground across brains, just by virtue of having the intellectual humility to say, ‘OK, I thought it was like this, but what do you think?’ And being willing to change your mind,” she said, according to the John Templeton Foundation.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity Curiosity can help people get closer to consensus. Photo credit: Canva

Of course, there may be certain opinions and perspectives that are too abhorrent or inhumane to entertain with curious questions, so it's not like "tell me more" is always the solution to an intractable divide. But even those with whom we vehemently disagree or those whose views we find offensive may respond to curiosity with more open-mindedness and willingness to change their view than if we simply argue with them. And isn't that the whole point?

Sometimes what's effective doesn't always line up with our emotional reactions to a disagreement, so engaging with curiosity might take some practice. It may also require us to rethink what formats for public discourse are the most impactful. Is ranting in a TikTok video or a tweet conducive to this shift in how we engage others? Is one-on-one or small group, in-person discussion a better forum for curious engagement? These are important things to consider if our goal is not to merely state our case and make our voice heard but to actually help open people's minds and remain open-minded in our own lives as well.

Shitsuke, Japanese parenting, parenting, Japan, discipline. learning
Photo credit: Canva

Parents watch as their child uses a toothbrush.

When it comes to parenting, sometimes the simplest reframing of how you discipline can make all the difference. In a YouTube video, pediatric occupational therapist Emma Hubbard shares a tip she describes as the "Japanese rule that changes everything."

It's a method called "Shitsuke," which she explains literally translates to "discipline." She claims it's the "one simple rule that Japanese parents follow that helps create calm, respectful, and obedient children."


Hubbard makes it clear from the jump that although the word translates to "discipline," it doesn't carry the same meaning it does in Western culture. Instead, it's about getting ahead of behavioral issues rather than responding to them.

"It's really easy to fall into a cycle that looks something like this," she says. "We wait for our kids to act out, then we punish, lecture, or bargain with them. Shitsuke flips this completely."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

She goes on to explain that Shitsuke strongly urges parents to nurture their children by modeling good behavior and giving clear, consistent instruction.

"It's based on the belief that children develop good manners and courtesy through instruction and practice, not through punishment or hoping they'll just figure it out," she says. "Instead of constantly putting out fires, Japanese parents prevent them by actively teaching the exact behaviors they want to see."

Hubbard shares three main principles of this method:

1. Model the behavior you want to see

It's actually quite simple. Hubbard explains, "Japanese parents understand that kids are observational learners. If you want a calm child, you must be calm. If you want a respectful child, you must be respectful, especially when you're frustrated. And if you don't want your child to scream when they're angry, then you should also try not to scream when you're angry."

2. Be consistent with clear rules

Studies show that children are less anxious when given clear instructions and predictable routines.

"The truth is, rules don't make children unhappy," Hubbard says. "In fact, having no clear rules is what makes them anxious and stressed. Think about it like this. Imagine if you went to work and your boss never told you what time to arrive, what your job was, or even when team meetings started. You'd be anxious, stressed, and confused all day. And that's exactly how your child feels without clear rules."

In an article for Psychology Today, Jenalee Doom, PhD, points out that "both children's and adults' brains love predictability. We can still get pleasure from unpredictable things like surprises, but in general, we feel safe and secure when we have predictable routines, and we find unpredictability to be highly stressful." She goes on to offer suggestions for helping children feel safe, such as keeping regular bedtimes and having meals together.

3. Learn to reframe "naughty" behavior into a learning experience

This is the game changer for many parents, and what Hubbard calls the most important part of the concept.

"This is the most important part of Shitsuke that completely changes everything," she says. "Instead of just saying 'Don't do that' or 'Stop being naughty,' Shitsuke teaches parents to ask one crucial question: 'What skill does my child need to learn here?'"

The clear genius behind this principle is that it takes mistakes (which are going to happen) and turns them into lessons.

"This shift in thinking changes everything because instead of punishing the behavior you don't want, you start actively teaching the skill that they're missing," she adds. "And that's when you see real, lasting obedience because your child actually knows how to behave well."

children, discipline, shitsuke, Japanese method of learning, lessons A young girl has a tantrum. Photo credit: Vinh Thang on Unsplash

Hubbard's YouTube video has nearly one million views and over one thousand comments, many of which add insightful thoughts to the conversation.

One commenter stressed the importance of being respectful:

"Something I will add: growing up in Japan, polite behavior was acknowledged and positively reinforced by nearly every adult I interacted with. Not just my teachers, but my pediatrician, my neighbors, the old lady who ran the corner tobacco store, my barber, etc. Saying 'good morning!' or 'thank you!' felt fantastic, because here you are a tiny child being respectfully greeted by big adults. As an adult, I now acknowledge kind American children I encounter with comments like 'thank you, that was very considerate' to pass it on, and I see them smile. I do not have children of my own, but I encourage everyone to notice the children who are trying their best and to thank them for it."

Another commenter backs up the claim that children often thrive when they have set rules:

"Rules don't make children unhappy. 100%. As a teacher, they're the ones who expect me to follow the rules and enforce the consequences all the time. Predictability makes kids happy."

This commenter discusses the value of the words parents use:

"Framing of messages are so important. For example, instead of saying, 'Don't forget…,' rather say, 'please remember.' Or, 'Don't pull the kitty's tail,' instead say, 'Please pet it gently.' Reframe the message from communicating with negatively charged words to positively charged words by telling them what you want them to do, not what you don't want them to do."

Popular

I showed my Gen Z kids 'Dead Poets Society' and their angry reactions to it floored me

"Inspiring" apparently means different things to Gen X and Gen Z.

Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society, gen x and gen z differences

Robin Williams played inspiring English teacher John Keating in "Dead Poets Society."

As a Gen X parent of Gen Z teens and young adults, I'm used to cringing at things from 80s and 90s movies that haven't aged well. However, a beloved film from my youth that I thought they'd love, "Dead Poets Society," sparked some unexpectedly negative responses in my kids, shining a spotlight on generational differences I didn't even know existed.

I probably watched "Dead Poets Society" a dozen or more times as a teen and young adult, always finding it aesthetically beautiful, tragically sad, and profoundly inspiring. That film was one of the reasons I decided to become an English teacher, inspired as I was by Robin Williams' portrayal of the passionately unconventional English teacher, John Keating.


The way Mr. Keating shared his love of beauty and poetry with a class of high school boys at a stuffy prep school, encouraging them to "seize the day" and "suck all the marrow out of life," hit me right in my idealistic youthful heart. And when those boys stood up on their desks for him at the end of the film, defying the headmaster who held their futures in his hands? What a moving moment of triumph and support.

My Gen Z kids, however, saw the ending differently. They did love the feel of the film, which I expected with its warm, cozy, comforting vibe (at least up until the last 20 minutes or so). They loved Mr. Keating, because how can you not? But when the movie ended, I was taken aback hearing "That was terrible!" and "Why would you traumatize me like that?" before they also admitted, "But it was so gooood!"

- YouTube youtu.be

The traumatize part I actually get—I'd forgotten just how incredibly heavy the film gets all of a sudden. (A caveat I feel the need to add here: Gen Z uses the word "traumatize" not in a clinical sense but as an exaggerative term for being hit unexpectedly by something sad or disturbing. They know they weren't literally traumatized by the movie.)

But in discussing it further, I discovered three main generational differences that impacted my kids' "Dead Poets Society" viewing experience and what they took away from it.

1) Gen Z sees inspiring change through a systemic lens, not an individual one

The first thing my 20-year-old said when the credits rolled was, "What? That's terrible! Nothing changed! He got fired and the school is still run by a bunch of stodgy old white men forcing everyone to conform!" My immediate response was, "Yeah, but he changed those boys' individual lives, didn't he? He helped broaden their minds and see the world differently."

 o captain my captain, dead poets society Individual impact isn't as inspiring to Gen Z as it was to Gen X. Giphy

I realized that Gen X youth valued individuals going against the old, outdated system and doing their own thing, whereas Gen Z values the dismantling of the system itself. For Gen X, Mr. Keating and the boys taking a stand was inspiring, but the fact that it didn't actually change anything outside of their own individual experiences stuck like a needle in my Gen Z kids' craw.

2) Gen Z isn't accustomed to being blindsided by tragic storylines with no warning

To be fair, I did tell them there was "a sad part" before the movie started. But I'd forgotten how deeply devastating the last part of the movie was, so my daughter's "Why would you do that to me?!" was somewhat warranted. "I thought maybe a dog would die or something!" she said. No one really expected one of the main characters to die by suicide and the beloved teacher protagonist to be blamed for his death, but I'd somehow minimized the tragedy of it all in my memory so my "sad part" warning was a little insufficient.

But also to be fair, Gen X youth never got any such warnings—we were just blindsided by tragic plot twists all the time. As kids, we cheered on Atreyu trying to save his horse from the swamp in "The Neverending Story" only to watch him drown. Adults showed us "Watership Down" thinking it would be a cute little animated film about bunnies. We were slapped in the face by the tragic child death in "My Girl," which was marketed as a sweet coming of age movie.

Gen Z was raised in the era of trigger warnings and trauma-informed practices, while Gen X kids watched a teacher die on live TV in our classrooms with zero follow-up on how we were processing it. Those differences became apparent real quick at the end of this movie.


3) Gen Z fixates on boundary-crossing behavior that Gen X either overlooked or saw as more nuanced

The other reaction I wasn't expecting was the utter disdain my girls showed for Knox Overstreet, the sweet-but-over-eager character who fell for the football player's cheerleader girlfriend. His boundary-crossing attempts to woo her were always cringe, but for Gen X, cringe behavior in the name of love was generally either overlooked, tolerated, or sometimes even celebrated. (Standing on a girl's lawn in the middle of the night holding a full-volume stereo over your head was peak romance for Gen X, remember.) For Gen Z, the only thing worse than cringe is predatory behavior, which Knox's obsessiveness and pushiness could arguably be seen as. My own young Gen X lens saw Knox and said, "That's a bit much, dude. Take it down a notch or three." My Gen Z daughters' lens said, "That guy's a total creepo. She needs to run far the other way."

run, red flag behavior Gen Z is much more black and white about behaviors than previous generations. Giphy Red Flag Run GIF by BuzzFeed

On one hand, I was proud of them for recognizing red flag behaviors and calling them out. On the other hand, I saw how little room there is for nuance in their perceptions, which was…interesting.

To be clear, I don't think my Gen Z kids' reactions to "Dead Poets Society" are wrong; they're just different than mine were at their age. We're usually on the same page when it comes to these kinds of analyses, so seeing them have a drastically different reaction to something I loved at their age was really something. Now I'm wondering what other favorite movies from my youth I should show them to see if they view those differently as well—hopefully without "traumatizing" them too much with the experience.

This article originally appeared in January.

comedian, comedy, jimmy carr, standup, philosophy, parenting, dads, fatherhood, family, kids

Comedian Jimmy Carr put the jokes aside and delivered a brilliant nugget of parenting advice mid-show.

Jimmy Carr is best known as a comedian, but he also has dyslexia and had extreme trouble reading and writing into his early teen years. Years later, he'd go on to graduate from Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge with degrees in social and political science and first class honors.

It's safe to say that, jokes aside, he's a pretty smart guy. And in Carr's standup routines, he's not afraid to set aside the gags for a few minutes and get serious about topics that he feels deserve proper attention.


At a recent show, Carr was performing crowd work—asking questions and bantering with the audience—when an audience member called out a poignant question.

"What's your advice for parents with toddlers?" a woman yelled out.

"Well, I mean, practical advice? You can half-ass it. Get an iPad, a Netflix subscription, and you're off to the...races. They'll be very... happy," he said. The crowd roared with laughter. But Carr wasn't done. "You want serious advice?" he asked the woman.

Seamlessly, he launched into his philosophy on parenting.

"Hard choices now, easy life later," he said to a round of applause from the crowd. "I bet you fucking love your kids, but you've also got to love who they could be. So it's kindness, isn't it? You want to be really kind to your children, but not just kind in the moment. In the moment, what do kids want? They want to watch TV, not read books. They want to eat junk food, not vegetables. If you give in to that, if you're kind in the moment, you've got fat, stupid kids. That's no good. You've got to be a little bit mean in the moment."

He then joked that this clip would become his own "famous last words," so to speak when his own kids get older and reveal what a terrible father he turned out to be.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Carr taps into a common debate in his performance here: When does gentle parenting become so gentle that it does kids a disservice?

Millennial and even Gen Z parents are "breaking generational cycles of harshness and emotional distance," writes Motherly. Baby Boomers were notoriously distant, often as a result of their own upbringing, and some experts say Millennials have perhaps overcorrected.

Gentle parenting preaches connection over correction and validating a child's feelings frequently. Research generally suggests this is a good approach, but it's a high-wire act that requires careful calibration. Otherwise, as Carr points out, you wind up letting kids do whatever they want in an effort to be kind and avoid hurting their feelings—an approach called permissive parenting. That ultimately doesn't serve them in the long-run.

He doesn't shy away from the fact that being "meaner" is hard, and far easier said than done. It's a good thing to care about your kid's happiness, which is why Carr's reframe of the approach is so brilliant. You're being kind to the person your child will one day be, by being a little bit "meaner" right now.

comedian, comedy, jimmy carr, standup, philosophy, parenting, dads, fatherhood, family, kids Jimmy Carr became a dad in 2019.Albin Olsson/Wikimedia Commons

Carr is often all jokes, but he's been known to get serious when it comes to parenting. Reports say that Carr has one son, Rockefeller, who was born in 2019.

At another recent show, a woman called out wondering how she should deal with the kids who were bullying her 11-year-old son. After several minutes of non-stop, chaotic, ridiculously silly jokes, Carr turned on a dime.

"Speaking as a parent... you cannot helicopter parent. You cannot pave the jungle. You can just teach him to get through it. It's a very tough thing. On the upside, your kid is being bullied. That's terrible, I imagine heartbreaking for you...But at least he's not the bully. Tell him from me, you can't have an easy life and a great character. You can't have both. It'll make him stronger and better and more compassionate in the future," Carr said.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Carr's parenting advice videos have gone mega viral across social media and commenters can't believe how skillfully he can transition from jokes to solid gold words of wisdom.

"Jimmy can turn things on a sixpence from humour to compassion. He is a remarkable person."

"Just a brilliant intelligent empathetic chap."

"I do like how Jimmy can flip from the most savage come backs possible into full on philosopher in the most natural way."

"I love how this applies to essentially everything in life. Hard choices now. Easy life later. So simple, so true"

It shouldn't be a surprise that a comedian like Carr has such thoughtful takes on everything from mortality to parenting to life itself and happiness. Comedy is ultimately rooted in fundamental truths about the world. What's special about Carr is how he can turn off the funny filter and deliver that truth in its purest, most potent form when needed.

Parenting

Instead of a 'Sweet 16,' mom hosts 'Coming of Age Brunch' with adult mentors for her teen daughter

She calls it a "birthday tradition that will change your teenager's life."

sweet sixteen, birthday, birthday brunch, coming of age, young adulthood, parenting, parenting tip, parenting teens

A group of women raising glasses (left) A happy teen girl (right)

Turning sixteen is considered a milestone. It symbolizes the beginning of the transition from childhood to young adulthood, and the start of new privileges, responsibilities, and identities.

Many families celebrate this new chapter with some kind of “Sweet 16” ritual. Depending on one’s culture, it might go by a different name, such as a bar/bat mitzvah (when a boy/girl turns 13 in Jewish culture) or a quinceañera,, (when a girl turns 15 in Latin American culture). Each celebration involves slightly different traditions, but generally have the same intention of commemorating a child’s newfound maturity.


A mom who posts parenting tips under the handle of @simplyonpurpose recently shared her unique take on a “Sweet 16,” which she hails as “a birthday tradition that will change your teenager’s life.”

She calls it the “Coming of Age Brunch.”

Rather than having a birthday party with friends, this mom has her child choose a select group of adult mentors who have played a “special part” in the child’s life. These guests are asked to bring letters conveying, in their own words, “what it means to be a strong woman” and sharing special praise for the teen.

The reason is simple: “Children need a village during their adolescent years more than at any other time in their lives,” @simlyonpurpose wrote in her caption. This was a tradition that began with her eldest daughter, who is now 22. Doing it for now the third time, @simplyonpurpose feels confident that “every teenager needs this- a room full of adults that you admire praising you.”

It sounds lovely. Imagine if every girl had this kind of support as they entered an undeniably turbulent stage of life. Sure, maybe the hormonal fluctuations, body image issues, changing friend groups, relationship dramas, and social media challenges would still be there, but perhaps they wouldn’t be quite so all-consuming.

sweet sixteen, birthday, birthday brunch, coming of age, young adulthood, parenting, parenting tip, parenting teens A teen girl getting a hug.Photo credit: Canva

And to be clear, the OP clarified that this was not strictly a girls-only ritual, though she would tweak it slightly for a boy, featuring a “fire pit with roasted hotdogs and marshmallows” and male mentors to share words of wisdom and love.

This is great to hear as well, considering there have been a lot of conversations centered around how a lack of healthy mentors has led many young men to getting “red pilled,” or influenced by misogynistic and radicalized online forums that target lonely or vulnerable boys by offering a sense of belonging.

sweet sixteen, birthday, birthday brunch, coming of age, young adulthood, parenting, parenting tip, parenting teens A teen boy wearing headphones while looking at his phone. Photo credit: Canva

By and large, other parents were totally on board with a “Coming of Age Brunch.” Quite a few were excited to try it out for their own teens.

“This really resonates. 💗 I want to do something similar for my daughter as she turns 17," one person wrote.

"Teens don’t need more preaching. Instead they need trusted adults who model strong values, healthy boundaries, and long-term thinking. That kind of guidance sticks,” added another.

Another added, “I cannot even think of anything that could possibly be a better gift - you just cemented her village. How incredible!”

The proverb “It takes a village” is an extremely popular saying found in many cultures across the world, but it's lately accompanied with the lament that villages are not so easy to come by in the modern world. Maybe by creating new traditions like this, we are able to reclaim that sense of much-needed community. At the very least, young folks don’t have to feel so alone, and that in itself is a great thing.