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.

spray tans, spray tan, spray tan care, hygiene after spray tan, how to make spray tan last, truth behind spray tans
Photo credit: Canva
Woman is disgusted after learning the truth behind lasting spray tans.

Spray tans are seemingly the perfect answer for people who want a summer glow year-round. Not only is the application time quick (some take as little as 5 minutes), sprays tans also deliver sun-kissed skin without excessive UV exposure, essential for reducing the risk of skin cancer and premature excess wrinkles.

If you've never had a spray tan before, you may have lots of questions like: how long does a spray tan last? How do you care for your skin after getting a spray tan? And how can you make your spray tan last longer?


These are exactly the queries a woman on TikTok named Miss Redacted had after getting her first spray tan. But when given the instructions for how to extend the life of her spray tan through "proper care," she was left flabbergasted.

Spray tan aftercare

Spray tans take time to "develop" on the skin, so she was not surprised to receive the rundown on making sure her skin remained glowingly sun-kissed for as long as possible. What she wasn't expecting was the lack of care. Or maybe the better description would be the lack of hygiene required to maintain her newly tanned skin.

"Recently I got a spray tan for the first time because I really like being tan but I don't want to have wrinkles later because I'm obviously very vain. So I went the first time and I expected that I wouldn't be able to shower normally for the first 12-24 hours, and that didn't bother me that much because I'm like, okay, I understand the tan has to set in. I can be gross for a half a day, a day max, whatever, it's not that serious," Miss Redacted says before explaining the woman who did her spray tan began talking her through the process.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

The confused woman recalls a roommate in college who used to get spray tanned all the time as she put the pieces together on hygiene and spray tans. She tells the person doing her spray tan that she generally showers twice a day using soap and a silicone scrubber to wash her entire body, to which the spray tan artist immediately tells her not to use the scrubber on her body because it will take her tan off.

"I was like, 'Oh so don't use it the first shower?' and she was like 'No, like not at all.' And I was like 'What should I use instead of that?'" the first-time customer explains.

She was shocked to hear the artist tell her that she needed to switch to a washcloth and only use it to wash her, "underarms, your bikini area, and under your bra line." Again, Miss Redacted clarifies that means for the first shower only, but the artist reiterates not to put soap on your body "at all" for the first shower, only using a washcloth in the areas she previously mentioned. Once again, the woman was dumbfounded and asks again, what the spray tan artist means.

spray tan spray tans, spray tanning, fake tan, how long do spray tans last A woman gets a spray tan applied to her skin.Photo credit: Canva

"Because I got down this rabbit hole, I started reading about it on Reddit and some of the ways that girls were saying they maintained their spray tans is absolutely insane. Absolutely insane. Like y'all need a bath. Y'all need a...actually a hose down. Let's like put you in the yard with some Dawn, like you're one of the ducks in an oil spill. I think that's what's needed at this point," the woman jokes before clarifying that she doesn't think every woman getting spray tanned is avoiding bathing.

But when it comes to the ick factor over the ones who have been skipping the shower for weeks at a time, the woman isn't the only one feeling the heebie jeebies. Commenters are also shocked and a little grossed out.

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

Science

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

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

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

A photo of Lynn Margulis.

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

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


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

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

- YouTube www.youtube.com

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

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

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

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

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

island, ocracoke, north carolina, southern, old english, language, outer banks, accents, dialects
BBC Global/YouTube

An isolated island called Ocracoke is home to a unique dialect not found anywhere else in the world.

American accents are a ton of fun, and they're far more varied than most of us even realize. For example, the Baltimore dialect shares some dialectical DNA with the accent you find in other Northeastern cities like Philadelphia. Baldamor, hon! There's the New England dialects, most famously the Boston accent: Pahk the cah at Havahd yahd! The New York accent is world famous, as is the deep Southern twang, which gives way to a thick Cajun accent the closer you get to the water in Florida and Louisiana. These are all different versions of the greater American dialect.

But there is one place, a tiny island off the coast of North Carolina, where a few residents speak in such a unique way that it's not even identified as American by most people around the world. If you thought you'd heard it all, wait until you get an earful of this one.


Ocracoke, North Carolina, is home to a unique dialect called the Brogue: A strange blend of American Southern, Old Elizabethan English, with little bits of Irish and even Australian thrown in.

island, ocracoke, north carolina, southern, old english, language, outer banks, accents, dialects The Ocracoke light station.Kari Nousiainen/Flickr

The Brogue, also known as Hoi Toider, is absolutely fascinating to hear in action. When you watch interviews with the locals of the island, they at first appear to be speaking a form of deep American southern—you can hear the twang the way you might in parts of Georgia of Alabama.

But then, without warning, a word or phrase will slip out that sounds distinctly British. Old English even. Then you'll swear you hear a bit of Irish.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

The dialect owes its roots to a surprising source: Pirates.

Pirates loved to hide out on Ocracoke as the island is incredibly remote, about 20 miles from the mainland of North Carolina. Even today there are no bridges or flights to Ocracoke; it can only be reached by a (quite lengthy) boat ride. Eventually, the island was actually purchased by the Blackbeard's quartermaster (yes, that Blackbeard), William Howard, where he created something of a pirate settlement. English sailors and Native American tribes also passed through and had their own unique impact on the culture and developing language of the island.

In case have your doubts about the island's buccaneerish roots: "In one popular island legend, Ocracoke comes from the phrase, 'Oh, crow cock,' which was spoken by the infamous pirate Blackbeard as he waited to do battle at sunrise with the governor’s forces that had come to capture him," writes a guide from NC State University.

The dialect had a lot of room to develop without much outside influence. The BBC's Brian Carlton writes, "Howard's community lived in near-isolation for almost two centuries. Electricity didn't arrive at the island until 1938 and a ferry service didn't start until 1957, leaving the islanders cut off except for the occasional supply trip to the mainland."

That's why Hoi Toider is still alive to this day, although its speaking population has dwindled.

Here are a few hallmark phrases of the unique dialect:

  • A "dingbatter" is anyone not from the island; a tourist.
  • An "O'Cocker" is anyone born on the island of Ocracoke.
  • A "buck" is a good male friend, while a "puck" is a female friend.
  • The Brogue uses "weren't" liberally for singular nouns ("The sun weren't out yesterday.") and frequently adds an "a" in front of verbs. ("We went a-fishin' this morning.")

But to fully appreciate Hoi Toider, you've got to hear it in action:

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Experts say that as awesome as the Brogue is, it will likely disappear within the next 50 years.

Though the island remains about as remote as it comes, in 2025 there's no escaping the influence of social media, television, and film. Every generation born on the island is a smidge less-adoptive of the Brogue than the one that came before.

It will probably be mostly gone in the next couple of generations, which feels like a tragedy. Instead of "dingbatter" and "buck," the kids will be saying "Skibidi toilet" and "rizz." OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but young people growing up on the island won't be as immersed in the language as their elders and will begin to speak more and more like your average American.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

There's a concept called culture homogenization.

It's the idea that over time, because of technology and globalization, unique individual cultures from around the world will all start to look more and more the same. It's why you see fast food restaurants directly next to the Leaning Tower of Pisa and people all over the globe listening to the same handful of musical artists.

island, ocracoke, north carolina, southern, old english, language, outer banks, accents, dialects The Ocracoke ferry.Kari Nousiainen/Flickr

Ocracoke has managed to hang on longer than most places due to how difficult it is to reach. Here's hoping that the Ocracoke Brogue can survive somehow, some way, in little pockets of the island. It's just too dang cool and interesting to go away just yet.

This article originally appeared last year. It has been updated.

guitar, learning a skill, neuroscience, music, exposure, passive exposure, gardening

A woman learning how to play guitar.

Learning a new skill, such as playing an instrument, gardening, or picking up a new language, takes a lot of time and practice, whether that means scale training, learning about native plants, or using flashcards to memorize new words. To improve through practice, you have to perform the task repeatedly and receive feedback so you know whether you’re doing it correctly. Is my pitch correct? Did my geraniums bloom? Is my pronunciation understandable?

However, a new study by researchers at the Institute of Neuroscience at the University of Oregon shows that you can speed up these processes by adding a third element to practice and feedback: passive exposure. The good news is that passive exposure requires minimal effort and is enjoyable.


"Active learning of a... task requires both expending effort to perform the task and having access to feedback about task performance," the study authors explained. "Passive exposure to sensory stimuli, on the other hand, is relatively effortless and does not require feedback about performance."


woman reading, woman book, young woman, studying, new skills A woman reading a book.via Canva/Photos

How to pick up new skills faster?

So, if you’re learning to play the blues on guitar, listen to plenty of Howlin’ Wolf or Robert Johnson throughout the day. If you’re learning to cook, keep the Food Network on TV in the background to absorb some great culinary advice. Learning to garden? Take the time to notice the flora and fauna in your neighborhood or make frequent trips to your local botanical garden.

If you’re learning a new language, watch plenty of TV and films in the language you are learning. The scientists add that auditory learning is especially helpful, so listen to plenty of audiobooks or podcasts on the subject you’re learning about.

But, of course, you also have to be actively learning the skill as well by practicing your guitar for the recommended hours each day or by taking a class in languages. Passive exposure won't do the work for you, but it's a fantastic way to pick up things more quickly. Further, passive exposure keeps the new skill you're learning top-of-mind, so you're probably more likely to actively practice it.

What is passive exposure?

Researchers discovered the tremendous benefits of passive exposure after studying a group of mice. They trained them to find water by using various sounds to give positive or negative feedback, like playing a game of “hot or cold.” Some mice were passively exposed to these sounds when they weren't looking for water. Those who received this additional passive exposure and those who received active training learned to find the water reward more quickly.

gardening, woman gardening, gardening shears, leaning gardening, weeds A woman tending to her garden.via Canva/Photos


“Our results suggest that, in mice and in humans, a given performance threshold can be achieved with relatively less effort by combining low-effort passive exposure with active training,” James Murray, a neuroscientist who led the study, told University of Oregon News. “This insight could be helpful for humans learning an instrument or a second language, though more work will be needed to better understand how this applies to more complex tasks and how to optimize training schedules that combine passive exposure with active training.”

The one drawback to this study was that it was conducted on mice, not humans. However, recent studies on humans have found similar results, such as in sports. If you visualize yourself excelling at the sport or mentally rehearse a practice routine, it can positively affect your actual performance. Showing, once again, that when it comes to picking up a new skill, exposure is key.

The great news about the story is that, in addition to giving people a new way to approach learning, it’s an excuse for us to enjoy the things we love even more. If you enjoy listening to blues music so much that you decided to learn for yourself, it’s another reason to make it an even more significant part of your life.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

This article originally appeared last year.