upworthy
Popular

Still think the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery? The Confederate states would disagree.

Still think the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery? The Confederate states would disagree.

Was the Civil War fought over slavery or states' rights? People love to debate this question, and many seem to believe it's a matter of opinion.


But the truth is there's no debate to be had. We don't have to conjecture. We know that the Confederate states' primary motive was maintaining the right to enslave black people because they said so themselves.

We have the primary documents that explain, in detail, why Confederates wanted to break off from the U.S., and they are eye-opening to say the least. Even those who already understand slavery to be the primary cause of the Civil War may be shocked to see how blatantly and proudly the Southern states announced their intention to defend white supremacy and their right to own black people.

MARCH 21, 1861 SPEECH BY VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY, ALEXANDER STEPHENS

First let's take a look at a speech given by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, just a few weeks before the Civil War officially began. After describing some details of the Confederacy's Constitution, Vice President Stephens stated that slavery was the "immediate cause" of the South's "revolution."

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution, African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact."

I mean, he said it right there. Slavery of black people was the "immediate cause" of secession and the impending war.

But he didn't stop there. No, he laid out the entire racist foundation of the new government in no uncertain terms.

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away . . . Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Hmmm, so the South literally founded the Confederate government on the idea that slavery wasn't just acceptable, but that black people were actually supposed to be enslaved. This was stated plainly and proudly.

Need a moment? Yeah, me too. Take a deep breath, because we're just getting going here.

RELATED: This West Point colonel will tell you what the Civil War was really about.

Moving on, Stephens called the Northern abolitionists "fanatics," saying, "They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. . . ."

There's more.

"With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

Stephens then went on to explain how God designed humanity so that one race would be subordinate to another, and that going against slavery is going against "the ordinance of the Creator."

It seriously could not be more clear: The Confederates were proud white supremacists who wanted to build a country around that ideal.

Lest anyone argue that this was just one speech or just one man's opinion, or that maybe Stephens didn't speak for the whole Confederacy (despite being Vice President of it), let's look at what the Confederate states themselves said.

DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES OF SECEDING STATES, 1861

In addition to the Ordinances of Secession announcing the departure of each of the Confederate states from the U.S., a handful of Southern states issued a Declaration of the Causes of Seceding States, explaining in detail why they felt they needed to leave the Union.

You can read the document in its entirety here, but let's take a look at some highlights. (The first thing to note is that some iteration of the word "slave" appears 83 times in these declarations. So, yeah.)

GEORGIA

Right out of the gate, Georgia let everyone know that slavery is at the forefront of its concerns. The second sentence of their declaration reads:

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Okay then.

As we read through Georgia's lengthy history lesson of how the states got to this point, it's worth noting that they rarely referred to the "Northern" and "Southern" states. Instead, they referred to "non-slaveholding states" and "slave-holding states." That alone ought to be a clue as to their motivations.

But if that's not enough, here's where Georgia stated that the Republican Party's anti-slavery stance justified its decision to leave the Union.

"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."

Finally, they summed up how racial equality and the prohibition of slavery, being the primary concern of the non-slaveholding states, was something they simply would not abide.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment,and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us."

Thank you, Georgia, for clarifying your position.

MISSISSIPPI

Again, right out the gate, Mississippi told everyone that slavery is their main reason for seceding. Here's how their declaration begins, no sentences skipped:

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world."

Once they made that clear, they explained how they simply couldn't live without slavery because black people were made to tend their crops.

"Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."

Mississippi just stated that their only choices were to give up slavery or secede. And if that still seems unclear somehow, here are some of the "facts" they included for why they couldn't stay in the Union:

"It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction."

"It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."

"It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."

"It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."

"It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists."

How can anyone say that the war wasn't about slavery at this point?

SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina's declaration started off sounding like it was all about "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES," as they used that all-caps phrase repeatedly in recounting the history of why the colonies broke off from England. But when they got into their specific grievances with the Union, guess what they complained about. Yup, slavery.

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

They went on and on about non-slaveholding states trying to control their "property" and "institutions." We could guess what they meant by that, but we don't have to because they told us.

"Those States have assume [sic] the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

They even got specific about states that passed anti-slavery laws, which they claimed went against the Constitution.

"The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

Again, South Carolina was clear that the North's hostility toward slavery was what drove them to break away, thereby leading to war.

TEXAS

Ah, Texas. If you thought the deep south was the only place that gleefully celebrated the enslavement of black people, take a look at the Lone Star State's declaration. It's a doozy.

RELATED: A school assignment asked for 3 benefits of slavery. This kid gave the only good answer.

First, here's how Texas described being accepted into the Confederacy:

"She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery—the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

So, not only is white people enslaving black people fine and dandy—it's a subjugation that should go on forever and ever. Got it.

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Sorry, I need to pause for a second. "Their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery"? And "the debasing doctrine of equality of all men"? The state of Texas said here that equality was not just unnatural but against God's law. We all know that racism was the standard of the day, but I don't think most of us were taught how deeply held these white supremacist beliefs were in the South's own words.

And again, they weren't done.

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

Still not done...

"That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

"Mutually beneficial to both bond and free." Oh yes, those lucky slaves, living just as the Almighty intended.

If you wonder why people see the Confederate flag as a racist symbol, this is why. If you wonder why honoring the leaders of the Confederacy with monuments and holidays is horrifically problematic, this is why.

We have it straight from the Confederates' mouths. The Civil War was fought because the South wanted the right to keep slavery and the North wanted to abolish it. People can say it was about states' rights, but it's disingenuous to omit the primary moral, political, and economic right the South was fighting to maintain—the legal and systematic subjugation and enslavement of black people.

They seriously could not have been any clearer about it.

Van Gogh's Starry Night, 1889.

Vincent van Gogh never got to enjoy his own historic success as an artist (even though we've been able to imagine what that moment might have looked like). Van Gogh died in 1890 at the age of 37 in Auvers-sur-Oise, France after shooting himself in the chest with a revolver. It was a tragic end to a turbulent life marked by mental instability and severe self-doubt.

According to the Van Gogh Museum, in a letter to his brother Theo in 1890, just a couple of weeks before his death, Van Gogh wrote, "...my life, is attacked at the very root, my step also is faltering." The man was struggling and exhausted. The high standards he had set for himself and his art were taking a toll. He was unsure about his future and, up to this point, had not received much recognition for his work and thought himself a failure "as a man and as an artist."

His most well-known work, Starry Night, was famously painted while Van Gogh was staying in an asylum in France 1889 after he mutilated his ear during a psychotic episode. According to the Van Gogh Museum, though, this may not be the full story. While it is widely agreed that Van Gogh did in fact cut off his own ear, the museum notes that it was because of a fight between Van Gogh and Paul Gaugin, the artist he had been working for in Aries, that led to the violent explosion that highlighted his deteriorating mental state.

Vincent Van Gogh, artist, 19th century, famous artist, Starry NightVincent Van Gogh's Self-Portrait, 1889Image via Canva.

As one of the best known and most studied artists of the 19th century, Van Gogh's madness and how it influenced his work is not new information. But it turns out that those of us who have appreciated his work have been missing out on some critical details for more than 100 years—revealed in the 2010s thanks to the Hubble Space Telescope.

A video at the bottom of the page will explain everything, but before we get there, let's do some backstory:

We known Van Gogh was an artist—and a genius artist at that—but, it turns out, he was also scientist. Kind of.

Whether intentionally or not, fresh eyes have found that Van Gogh's art—aside from being breathtaking—also captures one of science and nature's most elusive concepts: Turbulence.

The concept of turbulence is hard to understand with math, but it turns out art makes it fairly easy to comprehend through depiction. So, what is turbulence?

According to Britannica, turbulence, or turbulent flow, is a concept of fluid dynamics in which a type of fluid flow (liquid or gas like air or water or air) undergoes an irregular fluctuation or energy cascade. In other words, the air or water swirls and eddies as it moves: big eddies make smaller eddies, and those make even smaller ones, and so on. Common examples of turbulent flow include blood flow in arteries, lava flow, atmosphere and ocean currents, and the flow in boat wakes or surrounding the tips of aircraft wings.

It looks like this:

figures, flow, turbulence, turbulent flow, science, movementTurbulent flow illustrated and animated.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

The thing is, scientists only started figuring this out pretty recently.

turbulence, turbulent flow, science, nature, researchAnimation of art referencing science.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

And yet, there was Mr. Vincent van Gogh, 100 years earlier in his asylum with a mutilated ear and able to accurately capture this turbulent flow in what would become his most famous work, Starry Night.

Starry Night, Van Gogh, turbulence, art, art captures scienceAnimated Starry NightAll Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

The folks who noticed Van Gogh's ability to capture turbulence checked to see whether other artists did the same. Most of the Impressionists achieved "luminance" with their art—a striking and lifelike depiction of light's effect on color. While impressive, they did not capture or depict turbulence the way Van Gogh did.

The Scream, Edvard Munch, art, popular art, history, painting An animated depiction of The Scream.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

Not even Edvard Munch's The Scream, with it's swirling color and movement, could recreate what Van Gogh had accomplished.

Even in his darkest time, Van Gogh was able to capture—with eerie accuracy—one of nature's most complex and confusing concepts 100 years before scientists had the technology to do so.

Who would have thought that the beauty Van Gogh captured was foreshadowing what scientists would observe in the real, natural world in a century's time? To learn even more, watch the TED-Ed video below:

- YouTubeyoutu.be

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

Wellness

A professor reveals the secret of how to make 'gratitude lists' really work

"Those adults are regularly moved to tears to learn of the positive impact they had."

A woman crosses her arms in gratitude. A person writes a letter.

It's true that "gratitude" has become a buzzword and the very idea of it seems trite and empty to some. For others, the world might feel too chaotic at the moment to focus on the tiny, good things we're told to hang onto. But a professor of psychology at Gonzaga University gave some insight on how to make the concept of gratitude truly enhance our lives.

It's easy to take things for granted sometimes. Keeping a list of stuff we're grateful for, big and small, can certainly help put life into perspective—and not just items at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (like air and water), but all along the pyramid. It can change daily from "I got good sleep last night" to "I'm glad the TV show I like is back for a new season."

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

There's a guy on TikTok called David the Grateful Guy (@today.iam.grateful), and as you might have guessed, he posts clips of different things for which he's grateful. One day, he expressed his appreciation for salt. That’s it. Just salt.

@today.iam.grateful

Today I am grateful for salt! Anyone else add salt to almost everything?! #grateful #gratitude #gratitudejournal #todayiamgrateful #thankfulfor #salt #gratitudepractice

What was extra special is this short video garnered nearly 5,000 comments, binding a community together with jokes and "salt-recognition." It was the sharing of his gratitude that spread joy, more than the salt itself. Kind of like a "Oh yeah, salt IS nice." (Note: a cardiologist might not share this sentiment.)

Professor Monica Y. Bartlett, who in her own words teaches "courses on resilience and human flourishing," shares how important it is to do this. She writes in The Conversation that aside from being aware of your gratitude, "a second method for practicing is expressing that gratitude to others. This can look like writing a letter of gratitude and delivering it to someone who has made a positive impact in your life."

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

This can even be a letter in retrospect for someone who has passed on. The act of expressing one's appreciation is just as important as the appreciation itself. Now, this can't always be implemented, but when it can, it might be extremely impactful. Bartlett continues, "When my students do this exercise, it often results in touching interactions. For instance, my college students often write to high school mentors, and those adults are regularly moved to tears to learn of the positive impact they had. Expressing gratitude in work settings can boost employees’ sense of social worth."

A thread, "What's something you're most grateful for?" yielded many comments on Reddit. Lots of people answered food, shelter, air, family. But a few got specific. One person vulnerably shared, "Being gay in a country that doesn't illegalize it. It's still hard, but at least I don’t have to fear for my life."

Another person answered, "Coca-Cola. I'm a simple gal," and another got more specific, "Great red wine—spend a little more than £15 a bottle—but no more than £80—and pick good company (this bit is more important than the absolute price of the wine) and you have a fantastic evening."

red wine, gratitude, friendship, clinking glasses, relaxingPeople clinking their glasses of red wine for a cheers. Photo by Kelsey Knight on Unsplash

And one commenter simply wrote, "I'm grateful to see another day." Perhaps implementing the idea of writing gratitude letters to all the people who help make them feel that way would even triple the impact of happiness. To end with Bartlett's insightful words, "In a world that may currently feel bleak, a letter of gratitude may not only help the writer recognize the good of others, but also let others know that they are making a beautiful difference in the world."

Saying "I love you!" by accident is one of life's most cringe moments.

For many of us, telling our friends and family that we love them is second nature. Every time someone leaves the house, "Love you!" Before bed at night, "Love you!" Getting off a call with them, "Love you!"

That's all well and good until that sweetly ingrained habit spills over into your work life. Especially when you're talking to an important client, where the boundaries of professional conduct are particularly important to uphold. (Do you feel the cringe coming?)

I Love You Elf GIF by MOODMANGiphy

A woman shared an oh-so-human story about absent-mindedly telling a client she loved him, and his thoughtful response has people cheering.

"Accidentally said 'Love you!' at the end of a call with an important client yesterday," wrote a Reddit user. "I heard him giggle as I hung up, and I was mortified. Today, I saw he emailed me this:"

The email began, "Hey—Just wanted to say that I didn't mean to laugh at you when you accidentally signed off on our call with a 'love you.' I just found it funny because I've definitely done that before, and I know it happens."

Okay, phew, he understood that the laughing was mortifying and he wasn't bothered by the "love you." But then he added the absolute best thing he could have said about the situation:

"I'm glad you have enough love in your life that that response comes naturally. If anything, you should be proud of that. :)"

Then he mercifully resumed their professional conversation. "Have a great weekend! We'll follow up about my call with Chris on Wednesday, as discussed."

embarrassing story, saying I love you on accident, workplace stories, professional communication"Love you!" Oops.Photo credit: Canva

He didn't just ignore the elephant in the room and let it hang over her like an awkward cloud. He put her at ease, letting her know he's done it before and it happens and is no big deal. But then he took it a step further, adding a deeper human layer to the moment by acknowledging the fact that the words flowing so automatically and easily for her meant she was surrounded by love.

The client's emotional intelligence and thoughtful response warmed people's hearts.

"What a great and respectful response. He is completely right, it’s such a beautiful thing to have that much love in your life that it comes out naturally."

"You work with good people."

"Honestly, this made my day 😂 It's so wholesome how they responded. Shows that a little kindness (even accidental) always leaves a good impression!"

"Such a classy response. Made you feel at ease while staying professional and moving the conversation forward."

"Green flags from that client."

Green Flag GIF by The Last Talk ShowGiphy

People also shared their own similar experiences with blurting out accidental "love you"s and it was a veritable love-fest:

"I told my supervisor I loved her at the end of our weekly touch point call - she chuckled and said she loved me too. We shared a good laugh. I am happy to see empathy from a random human, it is much needed."

"I said 'love you' to my new boss at labcorp when she called me to tell me I passed my drug test. Same thing, hanging up, not thinking, she gave me my results and my start date to come in for orientation and I ended the call with 'bye love you!'"

"Back in the day I straight up called one of my bosses mom. It was so embarrassing I almost died."

"A surprising number of people have done this at least once. Happens when you’re distracted and tired. My ex husband (a prosecutor) accidentally ended a phone call with 'I love you' when talking to a rural county sheriff in the middle of the night."

Embarrassed Hide GIF by florGiphy

"I had a coworker say 'love you,' just as we were about to hang up. There was an awkward pause, clearly neither of us had hung up, then he added, 'Don’t tell my wife.' We both laughed and finally disconnected."

"I did that with my ex husband last Thursday, we both burst out laughing lol. Happily we get along great and he and his fiancée are attending my wedding next week."

"Was on phone with my boss right after he had called his wife. He ended the call with "love you." Had so much fun telling him that while I cared for him, I didn't think it was love."

Embarrassing moments don't have to ruin your day—in fact, when handled like this client, they can turn into beautiful moments of human connection. This kind of relatability, empathy, and emotional intelligence makes us all feel better about our shared humanity, oopsies and all.

Robert Irwin's answer to who would win in a fight between 100 men and 1 gorilla settles the debate.

In 2020, a viral debate was launched on social media prompted by an intriguing question: Who would win in a fight between 100 men and 1 silverback gorilla? In the years since, the question has been reposed repeatedly, with people expressing diverse but vehement opinions about whether a gorilla is strong enough to take on 100 humans or whether the sheer number of people would be enough to overtake the powerful primate.

Silly question? Perhaps. Something people can't help weighing in on? Most definitely.


@cbsmornings

Could 100 men defeat one gorilla in a fight? #NateBurleson and the internet are on the case. #gorilla


Some might think the most prudent answer would be, "It depends. What size are the people, and what's their strategy for attacking or subduing the gorilla?" But Robert Irwin, the conservationist son of the late (and much beloved) wildlife expert Steve Irwin, actually provided a perfect answer that should end the debate once and for all.

Irwin took to TikTok to share that he's been asked the "Who would win in a fight between 100 humans and 1 gorilla?" question over and over recently, even having people stop him on the street to ask.

"I have a couple thoughts on this," he began. "First of all, I don't know. Gorillas are strong, mate. Like really strong. But it's a hundred people. I'm not sure." But, he said, as an animal conservationist, the entire idea of fighting an endangered species didn't sit right with him. Then he turned the question on its head.

"How many people does it take to save gorillas?" he asked. "That's the question we should be asking because there's not many of them left."

@robertirwin

Everyone here on TikTok keeps asking me about this viral ‘Human V Gorilla’ debate 😂 I'm finally weighing in on the discussion everyone is talking about.


He explained that yes, gorillas are super strong and powerful, but most of the time "they're pretty chill." A gorilla isn't going to just randomly pick a fight with 100 people. Unless they feel threatened and need to defend themselves, they're just going to go about doing their thing, as gorillas do. "I guess what I'm trying to say is we don't need to fight gorillas," concluded Irwin. "Maybe let's just let this one remain a mystery."

People loved Irwin's take and the way he turned the question on its head from fighting gorillas to saving them.

"This is real masculinity. Lover not a fighter."

"Him gentle parenting us like school children is sending me."

gif, gorilla, animals, conservation, naturegorilla hurrying GIFGiphy

"The main man has spoken. The debate is over."

"He really said, 'it’s never HOW is the gorilla.'"

"'How many people does it take to save gorillas' is the most Robert Irwin answer."

"Your dad would be proud ❤️ spoken like a true conservationist ❤️."

Robert Irwin has followed in his father's footsteps and become an environmental icon in his own right, with fans from all over the world following his passionate educational content about our planet's creatures. Many in the comments remarked that they didn't know that gorillas were endangered, but it's true. All species of gorilla are considered Endangered or Critically Endangered, according to Endangered Species International.

There are two main species of gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla, and the World Wildlife Fund reports that both species have been decreasing in number for decades. However, the mountain gorilla subspecies is the sole exception, with numbers on the rise thanks to concerted conservation efforts. Mountain gorillas were officially downgraded from Critically Endangered to Endangered in November 2018, a genuine conservation success story.

However, there are still only around 1,000 mountain gorillas in the world today, so that turnaround in numbers is a fragile success. And other species still need our help to save them from further demise.

gorillas, endangered species, gorilla vs 100 humansGorillas are generally pretty chill.Photo credit: Canva

The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund has been working on saving gorillas for over 55 years, focusing on a holistic approach that includes gorilla protection and ecosystem preservation, scientific research, training the next generation of conservationists, and helping local communities near gorilla populations. You can learn more here.

Thank you, Robert Irwin, for the gentle and timely reminder of what really matters in the gorilla vs. humans debate.

A crying baby.

The names we give to our children can be very personal. They can reflect religious beliefs, family heritage, or have a special meaning attached to them, as in Grace, which means "divine favor," or Eli, which means "ascended." In the United States, people they are protected by the Constitution's First Amendment, freedom of speech, which allows us to name our babies whatever we like.

However, there have been some cases where the courts decided that a particular name is illegal, and, although it is infrequent, it has happened at least 10 times in the country. The most notable banned names are Misteri N-Word, King, Queen, Jesus Christ, III, Santa Claus, Majesty, Adolf Hitler, @, and 1069.

court, court reporter, legal system, plaintiff, judge, baliffA court reporter taking notes.via Canva/Photos

Why are these 10 names banned in the United States?

III (Roman numerals pronounced “three”)

Thomas Boyd Ritchie III was known by many of his friends simply as III. So, he petitioned the court to have his name changed to Roman numerals. Sadly, a California court rejected the name change because it was a symbol and a number. It’s illegal for people to have numbers in their names because they can’t be entered into state name databases.

Misteri (N-word)

In the California Superior Court case Lee v. Superior Court (1992), Russell Lawrence Lee wanted to change his name to Misteri (N-word). Lee believed that the name could be used to conquer racial hatred. Unfortunately for Lee, the court denied his request, saying the name constituted “fighting words.”

@ (pronounced “at”)

The address symbol, or @, has been banned in multiple jurisdictions because, like a numeral, it cannot be input into state database records.

Jesus Christ

The name of the Christian lord and savior has been banned in several U.S. states based on claims of blasphemy and the possibility of confusion.

jesus christ, heaven, god, divinity, holy trinity, religionDepiction of Jesus Christ in Heaven.via Canva/Photos

1069

In 1976, the North Dakota Supreme Court told high school teacher Michael Herbert Dengler that he could not change his name to “1069.” “The only way [my] identity can be expressed is 1069. The first character, 1, stands for my concept of nature which manifests itself as one individual among the various forms of life,” he noted. “I stand as a single entity amongst millions of other entities, animate and inanimate. But yet even though I am an entity unto myself, I am part of the whole of life which is one. I am one; life is one; and together we are one.”

He later moved to Minnesota and tried to change his name, but he was rejected again. Neither state allowed people to have numbers as their names.

Santa Claus

In December 1999, Robert William Handley of Ohio filed a petition to change his name to Santa Rob Claus, because he had played the Christmas character for the past 40 years, and was known as “Santa Rob” year-round. The court rejected his petition, saying it was “misleading to the children of the community.” Two years later, the Supreme Court of Utah allowed the name change.

santa claus, santa rob, banned names, christmas, saint nickA photo of Santa Claus.via Canva/Photos

Majesty, King, Queen

In several states, naming your child after a royal title is illegal to avoid confusion with actual royalty. Does Queen Latifah know this?

Adolf Hitler

If you want to name your child Adolf Hitler, you can’t do it in Texas. After the atrocities he committed in the 1930s and ‘40s, his name has no place in the Lone Star State. However, you can be named Adolf Hitler in New Jersey. Back in 2009, there was a big hubbub when the father of Adolf Hitler Campbell wanted his child’s name written on a birthday cake, and the proprietor of the business refused.