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…

Array
ArrayPhoto credit: Ryan Schultz/Creative Commons

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

“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.

  • ‘Cat’s Cradle’ video has people pondering how trends went viral before the Internet
    Cat's Cradle has been played for generations all over the world.Photo credit: Canva
    ,

    ‘Cat’s Cradle’ video has people pondering how trends went viral before the Internet

    Without social media, how were kids in Norway, Brazil, South Korea, and the U.S. all doing the same things?

    The word “trending” may have gained a whole new meaning in the Internet age, but trends have always existed as a social phenomenon. A video of teens in the ’90s doing “Cat’s Cradle” has people pondering how trends spread, sometimes worldwide, without social media.

    For those who are unfamiliar, Cat’s Cradle is a game of sorts involving a long loop of string wrapped around your hands and fingers in a specific pattern. The game involves transferring the string from one person to another without getting it tangled. Here’s what it looks like:

    The video on X triggered a ton of nostalgia in those who remember playing Cat’s Cradle. But the most remarkable thing is that people from all over the world say they played it around the same time:

    “HOW is this a universal thing. We did this exact thing, exact same moves, in Norway in the early 90s. Pre internet.”

    “That’s a great question. I used to play that game back in the ’90s, too, and I’m from Brazil.”

    “Same in Italy.”

    “What? This is a global thing, greetings from Chile.”

    “This is a game we used to play in Korea. Seeing it for the first time in a long while makes me miss my childhood memories.”

    “We did this in Romania too.”

    To be fair, Cat’s Cradle has been around for a long time. No one appears to know its exact origin. But a specific reference to the game appears in the 1768 novel The Light of Nature Pursued by Abraham Tucker:

    “An ingenious play they call cat’s cradle; one ties the two ends of a packthread together, and then winds it about his fingers, another with both hands takes it off perhaps in the shape of a gridiron, the first takes it from him again in another form, and so on alternately changing the packthread into a multitude of figures whose names I forget, it being so many years since I played at it myself.”

    A girl plays Cat's Cradle with a red string
    Cat’s Cradle has gone through waves of popularity. Photo credit: Canva

    It appears the game has seen surges in popularity at various times—but how? Why did it specifically trend in the ’90s? How did games, fashion, music, dance styles, and more become popular across the country or even the world before the Internet?

    Those who remember life before social media have shared recollections of how trends spread on forums like Reddit and MetaFilter. It’s a fascinating glimpse into a nearly forgotten past:

    “Everyone at a school would do it. Then, one group of people from this school would go to a youth group, and meet a group of people from a different school. It would become common throughout the youth group.

    People from the youth group would go to their own respective schools, and it would spread around the rest of their school mates who don’t go to that youth group – but perhaps go to a different youth group.

    Once something got popular enough, it might feature in magazines or even on TV.” – LondonPilot

    “Cultural transmission was a lot slower previously. In the 60s it was said New Zealand was five years behind England, later it was three years.

    Broadcast radio and later TV sped up cultural transmission immensely. TV shows were transported on film and played on telecine machines at the studios, up to six years behind the original release.

    Magazines were a bigger thing than now. International magazine subscriptions by airmail were extremely expensive so surface mail added up to two months to delivery. Many people read magazines via public libraries.

    Note none of the above are interactive, and only magazines allowed niche interests. Broadcast media had very few channels (until the US got cable TV) e.g. in NZ in the 70s a in a big city there might be six radio stations and one TV station. Later there were four major TV stations.

    There was much less diversity. Record shops had knowledgeable staff who could make recommendations. These were important as an album was a significant investment.

    People travelled and brought back new ideas. (In those days, Western countries were different to each other 😉

    Schoolkids spread jokes and games – one person could infect a whole school with a good game.” – cyathea

    “I think in the pre-internet days some trends and fashions were spread broadly via mass media, but many were regional and local. My wife grew up in small town Midwest and I grew up in the Boston area, both in the 70s to 80s. There were music, fashion and other cultural trends that were part of everyday life for me in the early- to mid-80s that were entirely unknown to her at that time.” –slkinsey

    “I think the big thing was that trends moved more slowly. So you’d have a thing that happened on TV and your weekly magazine (Time, Newsweek) would talk about it. Or your monthly humor magazine (Mad, Cracked). A lot more people watched the same channels, so you’d see people dressed on shows and dressed in commercials… I lived in a rural area, and when I’d visit friends in the big city I’d get ideas and some of those would filter down. I assume it was like this for other people, getting ideas from people more cosmopolitan and then the trickle down. Same with radio, there were only so many stations and there would be a culture that built up around each one which might include shows they promoted (you’d go, you’d see other people) and maybe local events or stuff around them.” –jessamyn 

    “I think social media is more about an acceleration in the spread of trends, as well as an increase in the scope of their spread, than the absence of trend-spreading before. Prior to Facebook/etc, people talked to one another, in person…

    Media wasn’t ‘social’ as we mean it today, but it was still… media. That, and people did what people do – watched the ‘in’ person or people among them and often copied/followed along. Based on my memories of summer camp, trends spread there practically in minutes, sans phones or the internet. Some of this had to do with most of the campers originating in the same hometown. They all just… knew… what was “in” (based on all knowing each other, they decided what that was, in turn based on movies, TV shows, etc) and good luck if you weren’t from their town. People set trends, and others follow, or try to follow – whether through gossip and magazines and MTV, or through social media. All that’s changed is the speed in which trends get set, and the size of the area that they reach.” – Armed Only With Hubris 

    “- Cool kids moving from other parts of the country to my rapidly-growing Minneapolis suburb were a vector for fashion trends in particular.

    – Older siblings would see shows at local venues, interact with others in the audience as well as the bands themselves and people traveling with them, and then bring those influences back to their friends and younger siblings.

    A person pulls a record out of a collection at a music shop
    Record shops played a big role in music trends before the Internet. Photo credit: Canva

    – A handful of shops played important roles spreading culture. Music stores were hangout spots where music was discovered and ideas mixed.

    – Alternative radio stations and college radio had a big reach even out into the small towns and countryside.” – theory 

    It’s wild to see these explanations and realize how much the Internet has changed things. Newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and record shops have struggled just to survive in the digital age. Rarely do they serve as influential forces in what’s popular.

    The people we used to think of as trendsetters are now “influencers.” Real-life social connections have morphed into social media connections that spread trends in the blink of an eye. It’s hard to remember a time when trends spread slowly, either in person or through influences we all shared. But it sure is fun to remember a time when a simple string game could keep us occupied for hours.

  • Delightful clip from 1955 shows how globes were once painstakingly made by hand
    A look inside a British globe manufacturing shop in 1955.Photo credit: British Pathé/YouTube

    For more than 2,000 years, humankind has known that the Earth is round. That fact was widely demonstrated in 1522, when the Magellan-Elcano expedition sailed around the planet without falling off its nonexistent edge. So for more than 2,000 years, people have made globes to help them navigate the planet and hone their geographic knowledge.

    In the second century AD, a major step in globe-making came when Claudius Ptolemy developed a scientific method for locating places using coordinates known as latitude and longitude. Initially, elites exchanged globes with one another. You might also find one in a classroom. But globes began to be mass-produced in the early 19th century, giving more people a way to understand the world from their own homes.

    Video shows how globes were made in London in 1955

    A charming video by British Pathé, created in 1955, offers an inside look at what it was like to manufacture a globe by hand before machines took over much of the process. British Pathé was a newsreel producer that covered world events from 1896 to 1978, and today its entire archive is available to view for free.

    Globe construction in the 1950s was a painstaking process. It began with covering a solid wooden ball with papier-mâché, which was then coated with plaster. Nine separate layers of plaster were applied to the sphere, bringing it to a thickness of 1/8 inch; the entire molding process took more than six hours.

    Once dried, the globe was sent to the covering room, where the map was pasted on in small portions, “like restoring the skin to a peeled orange,” the narrator said. After the map was added to the globe’s surface, workers painstakingly smoothed out any lumps and removed excess glue. It was then attached to an axis for display. The entire process took around 15 hours.

    globe, display globe, classroom globe, modern globe, map
    A globe. Photo credit: Canva

    In 1955, globes were available in sizes ranging from one inch (£0.60) to six feet (£1,000), which would cost roughly $24 to $35,000 in today’s dollars.

    How are globes made today?

    Replogle Globes, one of the world’s largest globe manufacturers, shared a video offering a behind-the-scenes look at how globes are made today and how modern machines have made the process much faster.

    One big difference from how globes were made in the ’50s is that the maps are printed directly onto chipboard, which is then precisely cut with a hydraulic press and formed into half a sphere. During the pressing process, three-dimensional mountains are embossed into the globe’s surface. After the northern and southern hemispheres are pressed together, they are attached to a central hoop, creating a complete replica of planet Earth.

    Globes have been around for more than 2,000 years, and they remain one of the few educational tools that we still use today. You can put a child in front of a computer and show them a representation of the Earth, which they will probably understand. Still, nothing beats running your fingers across a globe and spinning it in your hands to realize what an incredible planet we live on.

  • A woman found the Oscars red carpet in a dumpster and knew just what to do with it
    Paige Thalia shows off her impressive dumpster find. Photo credit: @hellopaigethalia/TikTok

    Thanks to a bit of savvy resourcefulness, some of Hollywood’s trash is now a woman’s interior decor treasure. 

    As Los Angeles-based content creator Paige Thalia shared with The New York Post, she had been walking her dog just outside the Dolby Theatre where the Oscars are held as crews were setting up for the March 15 ceremony.

    Apparently, Thalia had just moved into a nearby apartment and needed a rug “that wasn’t crazy expensive” for her living room.

    Then, inspiration struck. Why not deck out her living room with the famous red carpet? 

    @hellopaigethalia

    I’ve never wanted to turn my resume into a paper airplane more tbh

    ♬ Fame (2016 Remaster) – David Bowie

    Apparently, when Thalia first moved to Los Angeles 10 years ago, she attended a post-Oscars event at the Dolby Theatre, where she was allowed to “take home a tiny piece.” So, the dream seemed at least somewhat attainable.

    @hellopaigethalia

    I set a little personal mission of getting this 3 days ago and it actually happened omg #oscars #redcarpet #hollywood

    ♬ Long Cool Woman – MOONLGHT

    Sure enough, when she asked security if she could hop into the dumpsters to procure some pieces, they let her. In her now-viral reel, Thalia is seen with multiple large rolls.

    Later in her apartment, we see her casually vacuuming a piece of fabric that so many celebrity feet had traipsed across just hours earlier. No big deal.

    @hellopaigethalia

    I would like to thank the Academy… for this free rug

    ♬ original sound – Paige Thalia 💐

    Sadly, Thalia said that since going viral, the carpet had been moved behind a security gate, and security would not let anyone else take it.

    “I’m sorry I brought attention to it before all you guys could get some,” she said. 

    @hellopaigethalia

    Replying to @sufficientanybody sorry to announce this

    ♬ original sound – Paige Thalia 💐

    After Thalia’s video began making the rounds, several viewers criticized the apparent wastefulness of treating the red carpet as single-use.

    “I’m sorry. You’re telling me the Oscars don’t have a storage unit or something in order to reuse it??? They buy/make the carpet for ONE NIGHT and then THROW IT AWAY????? I’m shocked!!!,” one viewer wrote. 

    Another said, “I was today years old when I learned how wasteful the Oscars are…cause WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY BUY NEW CARPET EVERY YEAR?! but I can’t use a plastic straw.. Cool.”

    Others hoped that Thalia’s story would inspire more sustainable measures in the future.

    “Maybe next year they will not just throw it away,” a commenter wrote. “Let’s hope they donate or recycle it for some other use. It is crazy wasteful thank you for the attention you process.”

    “That could make so many throw rugs for animal shelters!” someone on X added, while another wrote, “Could they not auction off sections of the carpet and donate portions of the proceeds to charity? Would make for better PR at least.”

    It would seem that Event Carpet Pros, the company that has manufactured the carpet for the Oscars for more than 20 years, as well as events on both coasts like the Golden Globes, the Primetime Emmy Awards, and the Grammy Awards, has, in fact, been recycling its carpets as of 2023. Perhaps Thalia was lucky enough to go dumpster diving in a recycling bin. After all, the video shows the dumpster belonged to recycling removal company King Environmental.

    Either way, we can probably all agree that, as one viewer wrote, walking through the streets with a random piece of the Oscars red carpet is “the most LA thing ever.”

  • She had three packs of meat left and no money for groceries. Her landlord’s response has been shared half a million times.
    A woman chats on FaceTime while her young child watchesPhoto credit: Canva
    ,

    She had three packs of meat left and no money for groceries. Her landlord’s response has been shared half a million times.

    When Alan called his tenant Christina to say skip April’s rent, she thought that was the end of it. It wasn’t.

    In April 2020, Christina Marie was doing the math that millions of families were doing that spring, and the numbers weren’t adding up. A mother of four in Saginaw, Michigan, she was struggling to cover her bills as the pandemic ground everyday life to a halt. She had three packs of meat in her fridge and knew she’d need to make a grocery run soon, which meant going out during one of the most frightening early months of the outbreak. Then her landlord called.

    His name was Alan, and he had something to tell her: don’t worry about rent this month. They’d figure it out later.

    “SOOO My landlord Alan called me earlier and told me not to worry about rent this month and we will worry about it later i said okay!” Christina wrote in a Facebook post that would eventually rack up more than 500,000 reactions. She was grateful, she explained, and that was that. Or so she thought.

    During the call, Alan had also asked her a simple question: did she have food? She told him about the meat, mentioned she needed to get to the store. He told her to be safe and hung up.

    A little while later, her phone buzzed. It was a text from Alan, asking her to go check her front porch.

    She opened the door to find 16 bags of groceries waiting for her. Cartons of milk, potatoes, diapers and more, quietly left without any fanfare. Alan had decided she shouldn’t have to go out at all.

    “I couldn’t tell you how I feel right now for him to do this for my family my heart is so touched GOD BLESS YOU,” she wrote, alongside a photo of her porch overflowing with bags.

    According to Goalcast, Alan had been inspired by another landlord, Nathan Nichols, who had publicly announced he was giving his tenants a rent-free April because of the “serious financial hardship” the pandemic was causing for hourly and service workers. Nichols had also put out a call to other landlords: “I ask any other landlords out there to take a serious look at your own situation and consider giving your tenants some rent relief as well.” Alan took that to heart, and then went further.

    The post spread fast. Commenters poured in from across the country, many of them saying what a lot of people were thinking. “Better keep him as your landlord because it is really hard to find a good hearted person like that,” wrote Balentin Torres. Mivida Loca added, “It’s nice to know that we can stick together during such times and that there are decent human beings like that around.”

    Others were more direct: they wished Alan was their landlord too.

    The story keeps resurfacing because it captures something people were hungry for in those early, disorienting weeks of the pandemic, and still look for now. Not a grand gesture from a famous face or a corporation with a PR team, but one person quietly deciding that someone else’s situation was his business too, and doing something about it.

    This article originally appeared earlier this year.

  • Gen Z thinks capital letters are just ‘too intense.’ And a linguist agrees.
    Gen Z prefers typing in all lowercase.Photo credit: Canva

    Gen Z has developed many quirks that have come to define the generation. From “work minimalism” to “soft socializing” to their unique slang, they’re redefining their experience in the world.

    They’ve also adopted their own views on grammar and punctuation. Many Gen Zers claim that using periods in texts is “aggressive.” The generation has also seemingly done away with capital letters, arguing that it “feels too intense.”

    If you’ve ever texted with a Gen Zer, you may notice that they forgo capital letters and keep their typing all lowercase. But why?

    Linguist Tom Scott addresses it in a video about Gen Z’s unconventional views on grammar.

    Why Gen Z prefers lowercase letters

    According to Scott, for Gen Z, it’s deeper than just bucking a long-standing grammar rule. It comes down to their lived experience in the digital age.

    “We don’t speak to everyone in our lives in the exact same way,” he explains, noting that with bosses our speech becomes more formal, while with friends and family it becomes more casual. “We change our way of speaking depending on the identity that we’re trying to project.”

    He notes that our voices have different registers and intonations, and that different varieties of language—and the way our voices rise and fall in tone to convey meaning—are used in different situations. The same goes for the written word, aka text messages.

    In writing, capital letters simply indicate the beginning of a sentence and proper nouns, such as “A man named John traveled to London to see the Queen.”

    “While that might make a paragraph easier to read, we don’t flag that at all when we speak,” Scott explains. “So in informal conversations, those that feel like speaking, we don’t need capital letters.”

    @dylanjpalladino

    Can someone explain this to me? From the most recent podcast episode, we talk about Gen Z not using capitals letters and also how the terms millennial, boomer and Gen z were created by Johnson and Johnson to sell you more soap. #podcast #podcasts #comedy #genz #millennial

    ♬ original sound – Dylan J Palladino

    The digital influence on Gen Z’s lowercase typing

    In online communities, capital letters convey something else: tone.

    “All-caps became shouting [CAN YOU HEAR ME?]. So lowercase is calm, normal conversation,” says Scott. “Remove the capitalization and you get this sort of aloof, don’t-really-care tone that works well for dead pan humor and irony.”

    Scott adds that some people think all-lowercase typing is lazy, but intentionally typing in all lowercase requires changing settings and putting in extra effort to delete capitalized letters that get autocorrected, thus debunking that theory.

    All-lowercase is a stylistic effect that Gen Z has adopted and used consistently, which Scott emphasizes means it’s understood within the group.

    Gen Z responds

    On Reddit, many Gen Zers explained why they prefer typing in all lowercase:

    “We don’t type everything in lowercase. We know damn well how formal capitalization works. Can use periods too, thank you very much! The usage of no capitals is mainly a thing in informal contexts, and comes from when autocapitalization didn’t exist; when it was genuinely faster to type without them. It has developed into a social tool – along with rigid punctuation standards – to mark informal speech apart from formal.”

    “Because it makes the text messages overly serious. Many of my peers find it rude if you text the way I’m texting now with proper punctuation and capitalization.”

    “Because the boomers took the ALL UPPER CASE.”

    “i write in lowercase when it comes to keeping things casual but then switch to a more formalized sentence structure in situations where i have to be serious.”

  • A hundred years ago, everyone wore hats. In 1960, they suddenly stopped. Here’s why.
    When did everyone stop wearing hats?Photo credit: via Warmbru Curiosity/YouTube
    , , , ,

    A hundred years ago, everyone wore hats. In 1960, they suddenly stopped. Here’s why.

    Old footage from the ’50s shows men, women, and children wearing hats everywhere they go.

    It was everywhere. Men, women, and even children did it every time they left the house. If you see old newsreel footage of men in the office or on commuter trains from the advent of the motion picture camera to the early ‘60s, nearly everyone is wearing a hat. Hats were just as common for women in that era. For a woman to go out without a hat in the first half of the 20th century was akin to going out without clothes.

    The funny thing is that everyone’s headgear is so similar in the old-timey footage that it makes previous generations look like big-time conformists. Then, in the early ‘60s, everything changed, and men and women started to go out in public with their hair exposed. Why did such a big aspect of fashion seem to change overnight?

    Warmbru Curiosity investigated the question recently in a popular YouTube video. Warmbru’s channel is a lighthearted look at some of the more unusual people and events from our history and how they have influenced the world in which we live.

     

    Why did people stop wearing hats?

    Warmbru says fashion changed dramatically after World War II, when people in developed countries began to care less about expressing their social status. “This was especially true among the younger generation the rise of youth culture in the 1950s and 1960s emphasized rebellion against traditional norms, including formal dress codes,” the YouTuber says.

    Mad Men, Don Draper, Jon Hamm, hats, mens fashion, men's hats, 1950s
    Don Draper from AMC’s Image via

    Another big reason for the change in fashion was technology. Cars became the preferred mode of transportation for many after World War II and indoor environments became more hospitable. “People spent far less time exposed to the elements as people increasingly moved to urban areas and started using cars,” Warmbru says. “The practicality of wearing hats diminishes. Hats can be cumbersome in cars and on public transport, improvements in heating and air conditioning reduce the need for hats to provide warmth.”

    Warmbru adds that President John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, rarely wore a hat and his decision to go bareheaded became associated with modernity. Further, in 1963, the mop-topped Beatles proudly flaunted their hatless heads as they shook them while singing, “Wooooo.” Hat-wearing among women began to decline around the same time as the restrictive and complex headgear clashed with the burgeoning women’s liberation movement.

    Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, hats, men, men's fashion, 1960's, 1950's

    John F. Kennedy with his family Image via Wikicommons

    The decline in hat purchases meant that manufacturers closed and the headgear became harder to come by. This reduced availability further contributed to the decline in hat-wearing. As fewer people wore hats, there became a greater demand for high-quality hair products and services. “Why spend a fortune at the hairdressers or the barbers just to cover the end result with a hat?” Warmbru asks.

    Ultimately, there were many reasons why people stopped wearing hats. It appears that it was a combination of technology, influential people such as Kennedy and The Beatles, and the overwhelming mood of change that swept most of the Western world in the 1960s. But if one thing is true about fashion, it goes in cycles. So, it seems that hats may be ready for their big comeback.

     

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

  • She was fired for taking 10 minutes to reply to emails. Then she made sure they’d regret it.
    A frustrated employee is typing on her computerPhoto credit: Canva

    She had been on the job for four months when she was pulled without warning into a meeting with her manager, HR, and legal. Effective immediately, she was fired. The reason given: she took ten minutes to respond to emails.

    “That was a bullsh*t reason,” she wrote in a post to Reddit’s r/MaliciousCompliance that has since racked up more than 19,000 upvotes. “To be honest, I was furious.”

    The job itself had never been easy. She’d been hired as a speaker coordinator for a company that planned large conferences, and from the start, as she described it to Bored Panda, there was no onboarding, no training, and no clear point of contact. “I was simply given the log-in info for a couple of different websites and told to get to work.” She was the only person in the role. All the institutional knowledge about speakers, schedules, and upcoming events lived entirely with her.

    Audience listening to a speaker at a conference. Photo credit: Canva

    Her manager spoke limited English, which made communication difficult in ways that weren’t anyone’s fault but created real problems. When she once asked her manager for a call to clarify something, the response came back: “No cranne. Self skills is a must. I am bird without head.” It took her several days to piece together that her manager was trying to say she was overwhelmed and needed her employee to be more self-sufficient.

    She adapted, figured things out, and by her own account, kept the speakers happy. Then came the meeting, the firing, and the reason that didn’t add up. Ten minutes to reply to an email. No written warning. No verbal warning. Nothing.

    During the exit interview, HR asked her to hand over her files and walk them through where things stood with an upcoming event scheduled in 17 days. She reached into her bag and pulled out her copy of the NDA she’d signed when she started.

    As she told it on Reddit, she pointed to a specific clause: as a former employer, they were now prohibited from receiving confidential information about the position under the terms of the very agreement they’d had her sign. “As per my NDA, I am not to discuss intimate details or share documents relating to this position with any employer, past or future. Since this firing was effective immediately, you are now a former employer and I am bound by my NDA.”

    A non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Photo credit: Canva

    HR pushed back. She held firm. Legal was brought in. Legal read the clause and confirmed she was correct.

    The event, by her account, was a disaster. More than half the speakers pulled out once communication broke down. Her former manager nearly lost her job over it. The employee, for her part, closed her Reddit post with the mocking subject line that had gotten her fired in the first place: “All because I ~tAKe ToO lONg tO ResPoND tO EMaILS~”

    The story resonated because it captures something many workers recognize: the particular frustration of being let go without cause, without warning, and without recourse, and the rare satisfaction of finding that the company had, in this case, handed her exactly the recourse she needed. Save your contracts. Read the fine print. Sometimes the NDA works both ways.

    This article originally appeared earlier this year.

  • They evicted her after 40 years to claim her hand-painted murals. Her parting gift was perfect.
    A woman paints a mural indoors Photo credit: Canva
    ,

    They evicted her after 40 years to claim her hand-painted murals. Her parting gift was perfect.

    The landlord’s family evicted her to claim her artwork, but a neighbor with a paint sprayer had a different idea.

    For nearly four decades, a retired art teacher had been turning her rental house into something extraordinary. Every wall inside held hand-painted murals, Disney movies and fairy tales rendered floor to ceiling, the kind of place that people in the neighborhood knew by reputation. Outside, she’d added a cottage facade. Inside, it was unlike anything else on the street.

    She had no lease. The original landlord had given her a verbal agreement that the art on the walls wouldn’t be a problem, and she’d been there since the mid-1980s with an informal understanding that the house might one day be hers.

    Then the original landlord died. His son inherited the property, came to inspect it with his daughter, and they fell in love with what they saw. According to a post shared to Reddit’s r/pettyrevenge by a neighbor, u/ZZZ-Top, the family decided the art house should go to the daughter. Without a lease, the tenant had limited options. The murals she’d painted, the very thing that made the property desirable, were used as justification to push her out.

    “She was devastated,” the neighbor wrote.

    But she landed on her feet. Friends helped her find a property in another state at the last minute, one with a full art studio on the ground floor. The question of what to leave behind was where things got interesting.

    She had originally planned to leave the murals intact. Then her neighbor, a friend who had been wanting to practice using a powered paint sprayer, made her an offer: he would restore the house to what he called “Rebecca standards” for free. As he explained in the post, “Rebecca standards” is neighborhood shorthand for the look of a flipped house: everything painted in the same flat white and depressing grey, every surface generic, every trace of personality gone. The landlord’s family had evicted her specifically to get the murals. Rebecca standards would make that impossible.

    A woman paints a mural on a wall. Photo credit: Canva

    She agreed.

    Her furniture went into storage. Her neighbor let her stay in his guest house in exchange for one new mural on his living room wall. Then the work began. As the Someecards account of the story details, the painter friend sanded every wall in the house until the murals became nothing but blotchy color ghosts. Then came the Kilz primer, sprayed wall to wall. Then the grey. Wood paneling, trim, switch covers, outlet covers, counters, cabinets. All of it the same flat, lifeless shade. “The house looked dead inside when I went in to check it out,” the neighbor wrote. “It was weird not seeing all the murals.”

    Outside, a landscaping friend cleared the cottage facade and the plants, replacing everything with gravel, sand, and a single boulder.

    A few days after she left, the neighbor noticed the house was still empty. He asked around. Some U-Haul trucks had shown up earlier in the week, he was told, but none of them had been unloaded. Nobody had moved in.

    The post drew over 38,000 upvotes and hundreds of comments from people who understood exactly what had happened. “They could have easily asked her for a commission to do the same murals in their own home,” one commenter wrote, “but chose to kick her out instead.” Another kept it simpler: “Kick me out? My art goes with me. Enjoy the blank walls.”

    For anyone renting without a written lease, the story carries a quieter lesson. Verbal agreements offer almost no protection when ownership changes hands. The woman lost her home of 40 years because of a handshake arrangement with someone who was no longer alive to honor it. She found a better situation in the end, one with a proper studio and walls she actually owns. But the path there didn’t have to be that hard.

    This article originally appeared earlier this year.

Making Sense of Science

Therapist explains surprisingly scientific reason we never stop loving the songs from our youth

Nostalgia

Delightful clip from 1955 shows how globes were once painstakingly made by hand

Pop Culture

A woman found the Oscars red carpet in a dumpster and knew just what to do with it

Culture

She had three packs of meat left and no money for groceries. Her landlord’s response has been shared half a million times.