How do we live with the good and bad parts of life without letting the bad consume us?

The world is chaotic. It always has been. Today feels unstable to many people, but much of human history has also been marked by uncertainty, conflict, disease, loss, and fear. Perspective matters. It is easy to become so consumed by the problems of the present moment that you lose sight of the broader human story.

That does not mean ignoring suffering or pretending everything is fine. It means understanding that struggle has always been part of existence. The goal is not to dwell endlessly on the bad things that happen, but to continue living anyway. To continue finding meaning, happiness, curiosity, love, humor, and purpose despite them.

Because if we are being honest, the fact that you exist at all is almost incomprehensibly unlikely.

Billion years of existence led to you being alive in this exact moment. The formation of the universe. Evolution. Mass extinctions. Survival. Migration. Every ancestor meeting at the exact right time. Wars survived. Diseases survived. Random decisions. Accidents avoided. Countless generations living long enough to have children again and again.

And beyond that, your own existence depended on countless improbabilities. The right sperm reaching the right egg. A successful pregnancy. A successful birth. Surviving childhood. Surviving every moment afterward until today.

From an individual perspective, the odds of you existing are astronomically small.

That is what I mean when I say we are all playing with house money.

Obviously, life is not equally easy for everyone. Some people face enormous suffering, injustice, illness, poverty, trauma, or pain. That reality should never be minimized. But still, the simple ability to experience life at all, to think, love, laugh, listen to music, talk to another person, watch a sunset, or see the stars, is extraordinary.

You are the product of billions of years of survival, chance, and history.

So make the most of it.

Not because life is perfect.

But because against all odds, you are here.

Subscribe now

Share

Welcome back to the Roots of Reality newsletter. In honor of Earth Day being in April, we are diving into the state of our planet. This issue is dedicated to debunking a common misconception regarding human actions to protect our environment, celebrating an environmental success story, and sharing a recommended reading for those looking to understand or deepen their impact.

Fact Check

The Myth: Most plastic you recycle actually gets “recycled” and turned into new products.

The Fact: When plastic is recycled, it is transferred to waste-sorting facilities called material recovery facilities (MRFs). They are then sorted, squashed, and loaded onto trains, trucks, or cargo ships.^[1] However, most plastic doesn’t actually get “recycled.” In 2022, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that only about 9% of plastic worldwide was actually recycled, while 19% was incinerated, almost 50% going to sanitary landfills, and the other 22% being wound up in open dumps, burned in open pits, or escaped into the environment.^[2]

Why It Matters: While recycling plastic can still be beneficial, the reality is that it has little environmental impact. Therefore, it is crucial to underscore the importance and effectiveness of reducing or reusing plastic to benefit the environment. For example, Boise State University’s College of Business and Economics, citing a lifecycle assessment in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, reports that in some modeled scenarios, recycling may reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 2–3% compared to baseline conditions, while scenarios involving reusing materials or reducing consumption show substantially larger potential reductions, in some cases up to around 20%, depending on system assumptions.^[3]

Human Progress and Success

The Story: NOAA Fisheries reported that scientists believe that, due to human efforts to connect spawning rivers to mainstem rivers, as well as other large-scale habitat restoration projects in California, better conditions have allowed the endangered Central California Coast Coho salmon species to revitalize their productivity and become more abundant.^[4]

The Impact: During the 2024-2025 spawning season, more than 30,000 Central California Coast Coho Salmon migrated to Mendocino Coast rivers, up from a record 15,000 from the season before, and an outstanding increase from the average of the past decade, which was around 3,000 annual returns.^[5]

The Takeaway: Human efforts in habitat restoration projects have a profound effect on saving endangered species, such as these Coho Salmon. This sets a precedent that human actions to reverse the course of habitat destruction and displacement can truly help revitalize biodiversity, which is paramount to the ecosystem’s symmetry. While this story discusses only one species, these instances demonstrate that environmental sustainability has concrete success, inspiring more efforts across a range of environmental issues to push us toward creating a safer, more prosperous planet.

Recommended Reading

Title: Toxic Truth: A Scientist, a Doctor, and the Battle over Lead

Author: Lydia Denworth

What It Is About: The book follows two men: Clair Patterson, a geochemist focused on determining the age of the Earth, and Herbert Needleman, a pediatrician. Despite their differing career paths, they both found that lead levels were 1,000 times higher than normal, causing harmful effects on both children and adults. Through their research, Patterson, Needleman, and their supporters would risk their careers by challenging powerful corporations that wielded significant influence over the US government. Their battle to enlighten the public eventually helped lead to the removal of lead from gasoline, paint, and food cans in the 1970s, resulting in a 90 percent drop in lead levels in American bodies.^[6]

Why We Recommend It: Toxic Truth is one of many accounts of people willing to sacrifice their careers to protect humanity and the environment from toxic exploitation. The story was also a watershed moment for public health impact, as Patterson and Needleman’s efforts removed lead from a multitude of products, considerably reducing lead levels in American bodies to prevent further health issues for future generations. Additionally, the author, Lydia Denworth, does a fabulous job providing a dual narrative of Clair Patterson and Herbert Needleman.

Listen to the Latest Episode

Don’t forget to check out our newest episode: The Future of AI with Dr. Sean O hEigeartaigh, available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Soundcloud, and Amazon Music.

Thank you for exploring the roots of our world with us. If you found this week’s newsletter worth reading, please share it with someone who has ever tossed a plastic bottle in the recycling bin and assumed the job was done.

Spotify | Soundcloud | Apple Podcasts | YouTube | Amazon Music | Instagram | X | Facebook

Subscribe now

^[1] Editor, Plastic Pollution Coalition. “What Really Happens to Your Plastic ‘Recycling.’” Plastic Pollution Coalition, May 16, 2022. https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/blog/2022/5/16/what-really-happens-to-your-plastic-recycling.

^[2] “Only Nine Percent of Plastic Recycled Worldwide: OECD.” Phys.org, February 22, 2022. https://phys.org/news/2022-02-percent-plastic-recycled-worldwide-oecd.html.

^[3] College of Business and Economics. “Recycling: Is It As Good As We Think?” College of Business and Economics, July 30, 2024. https://www.boisestate.edu/cobe/blog/2023/07/recycling-is-it-as-good-as-we-think/.

^[4] Office of Habitat Conservation. “Record 30,000 Endangered Central California Coast Coho Salmon Return to Mendocino Coast Rivers.” NOAA Fisheries, March 26, 2026. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/record-30000-endangered-central-california-coast-coho-salmon-return-mendocino-coast.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Denworth, Lydia. “Toxic Truth: A Scientist, a Doctor, and the Battle over Lead .” Goodreads. Accessed April 17, 2026. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4606800-toxic-truth.

History is rarely lost by accident; it is usually dismantled by design. We prefer to believe that the free exchange of ideas is a fundamental constant of modern democracy, yet the headlines suggest a disturbing regression. From the Escambia County School Board in Florida removing “And Tango Makes Three” a picture book about two male penguins raising a chick to the Katy Independent School District in Texas temporarily pulling New Kid by Jerry Craft following claims that it promoted critical race theory, we are witnessing a purposeful dislocation of intellectual freedom. We often dismiss these events as isolated incidents or local dramas enacted by overzealous parents. This perception is comfortable, but it is incorrect.

The reality is that we are not watching a series of unconnected skirmishes. We are observing a synchronized campaign. To understand the gravity of this moment, we must strip away the comfortable rhetoric and confront the mechanism beneath.

What Is Modern Book Banning?

Before dissecting the arguments, we must define the subject. Modern book banning is rarely a dramatic bonfire in a town square. Instead, it is a bureaucratic process of “challenging,” “relocation,” and “restriction.” It is the removal of materials from public institutions like schools and libraries just based on the ideological objections of a few, thereby denying access to the many. It is an attempt to narrow the spectrum of acceptable thought within the public sphere.

The Anatomy of the Myth

Three pervasive myths cloud public discourse on this topic. These falsehoods serve to sanitize censorship, making it palatable to a democratic society.

Myth 1: This is a grassroots movement driven by spontaneous parental concern.

The narrative suggests that these challenges arise organically from individual parents stumbling upon “shocking” material in their child’s backpack. However, the data indicates that this is a fabrication. The current wave of censorship is not a spontaneous uprising; it is a coordinated political operation.

A 2024 report from PEN America confirms that the vast majority of book challenges are filed not by isolated individuals but by a vocal minority connected to organized advocacy groups (PEN America, 2024). The most prominent of these is the controversial group Moms for Liberty, which has expanded rapidly since its 2021 founding, now claiming over 130,000 members across 48 states. In recent years, the group has drawn significant criticism, most notably by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) designation of Moms for Liberty as an extremist organization, a characterization that remains a point of national debate and is rejected by the group’s supporters (USA Today, 2023). Regardless of the designation, its methodology is clearly political rather than parental. As reported by The New York Times, Moms for Liberty has developed deep ties to the Republican Party and, in some chapters, even forged connections with far-right extremist groups (NYT, 2023).

Myth 2: It is not a “ban” if you can still buy the book on Amazon.

Defenders of these removals often argue that because a title remains available for private purchase, no censorship has occurred. This argument ignores the reality of accessibility.

However, libraries exist to ensure that every member of society has access to information, not just those who can afford a one-click purchase. For a kid without a credit card or a family that cannot buy every book, the library is often the only access point. Locking that door tells that kid their curiosity doesn’t matter. Removing a book from a public library is the definition of censorship.

Myth 3: These measures are designed to protect children.

The language used to justify these bans, such as “protection,” “parental rights,” and “age-appropriateness,” is designed to be unobjectionable. However, an analysis of the targets reveals a different motivation: the erasure of specific identities and historical truths.

According to the American Library Association’s 2023 data on book challenges, 47% of unique titles challenged represented the voices and lived experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals and minority ethnic groups. By removing books by LGBTQ+ authors and ethnic minorities, censors are not “protecting” children from harm; they are enforcing a demographic conformity that denies the existence of marginalized groups.

The Global Reality: A Warning

We must stop talking about this as a “culture war.” It sanitizes reality. In many authoritarian nations around the world, the possession of challenged or banned books is frequently used as legal justification for imprisonment, torture, and state-sanctioned execution. The following international examples serve as a grim warning to democracies like the United States and Canada: When unchecked, the suppression of literature is often the precursor to authoritarianism. While we debate school board policies, the same authoritarian impulse is claiming lives globally:

• Stan Swamy was an 84-year-old Jesuit priest in India. He died in custody in 2021. He was arrested under an anti-terror law, and part of the “evidence” used to paint him as a threat against the state was his possession of books about tribal rights and Marxist literature (Amnesty International, 2023).

• Gui Minhai is a Hong Kong bookseller. He has been detained for a decade. His crime? Selling books critical of Chinese political leadership (Amnesty International, 2024).

• Phạm Đoan Trang is a Vietnamese journalist and publisher serving a nine-year sentence. She was convicted of disseminating “anti-state propaganda,” a charge stemming largely from her publication of Politics of a Police State, a report on police brutality, and other works advocating for civil rights (Reporters Without Borders, 2022).

• The Bhima Koregaon 16: In India, activists have been detained for years without trial under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. In several of these cases, the “incriminating evidence” cited by authorities included their personal library collections, with police framing the possession of leftist and Dalit rights literature as proof of involvement in a conspiracy to “wage war” against the state (The Leaflet, 2024).

If books are harmless, why do those in power around the world fear them enough to imprison them?

Beyond Politics: Authoritarian vs. Free Thought

This is the part where we have to get uncomfortable and look past our own “team.” It is easy to frame this as a Left vs. Right issue, but it is actually about authoritarian control vs. free thought. The call to “think critically” has to apply to everyone.

• If You’re Conservative or Religious: Ask yourself: If your faith is strong, why does it require silencing others? If your values are true, why can’t they survive contact with a different perspective? The Bible, the Quran, and the Bhagavad Gita have all been banned and burned throughout history by regimes that feared them.

• If You’re Progressive or Liberal: Ask yourself: China bans books in the name of “social harmony.” Is that really so different from demanding “safe spaces” that are free of all challenging ideas? When you celebrate deplatforming someone, how is that functionally different from a ban? The tools you build to silence “hate speech” will be inherited by those who consider your speech hateful.

Why the Truth Matters

The goal of censorship is to build an intellectually obedient population by severing the connection between diverse experiences. This severance is dangerous because reading fiction is literally an empathy-building machine.

A landmark study found that reading Harry Potter, which is one of the world’s most-banned series, measurably improved young people’s attitudes toward immigrants and LGBTQ+ people (Vezzali et al., 2014). This is because reading activates the same neural networks we use to understand real people (Oatley, 2011). The antidote to this erasure is simple. Every list of banned books is not a warning; it is a reading list. It is a syllabus for protesting censorship.

Additionally, just because someone reads a book does not mean they will agree with it. To assume otherwise is to strip away that human agency. Book bans treat citizens, as if they are incapable of critical thought, unable to sift the truth from fiction without state intervention.

You can ban the book, but you cannot ban the question it asks. You can silence the author, but you can’t silence the idea. The war on books is a war on your mind. And your mind is the only territory that really, truly matters.

Subscribe now

Share

References

Amnesty International. (2023). India: Justice for Stan Swamy, a year after he died in custody. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/07/india-justice-for-stan-swamy-a-year-after-his-death-in-custody/

Amnesty International. (2024). China: Hong Kong bookseller Gui Minhai must be released after a decade of cruel secrecy. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/10/china-hong-kong-bookseller-gui-minhai-must-be-released-after-decade-of-cruel-secrecy/

Freedom to Read Canada. (2024). Rising Tide of Censorship: Recent Challenges in Canadian Libraries. https://www.freedomtoread.ca/articles/rising-tide-of-censorship-recent-challenges-in-canadian-libraries/

New York Times. (2023). Moms for Liberty’s Rise and the GOP. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/moms-for-liberty-republicans.html

Oatley, K. (2011). Such Stuff as Dreams: The Psychology of Fiction. Wiley-Blackwell.

PEN America. (2024). Banned in the USA Reports. https://pen.org/issue/book-bans/

Reporters Without Borders (RSF). (2022). Vietnam: Blogger and publisher Pham Doan Trang sentenced to nine years in prison. https://rsf.org/en/vietnam-blogger-and-publisher-pham-doan-trang-sentenced-nine-years-prison

The Guardian. (2023). Hungary fines bookstore for selling LGBTQ+ graphic novel without plastic wrapping. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/14/hungary-fines-bookstore-for-selling-heartstopper-without-plastic-wrapping

The Leaflet. (2024). After Kashmir’s ‘ban’ on books, librarians are on a tightrope. https://theleaflet.in/kashmir/after-kashmirs-ban-on-books-librarians-are-on-a-tightrope/

The Moscow Times. (2024). Russia Adds Over 250 LGBTQ+ Books to ‘Extremist’ List. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/02/20/russia-adds-over-250-lgbtq-books-to-extremist-list-a84148

USA Today. (2023). SPLC labels Moms for Liberty ‘anti-government extremist’ group. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/06/06/splc-moms-for-liberty-anti-government-extremist-group/70289379007/

Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Giovannini, D., Capozza, D., & Trifiletti, E. (2014). The greatest magic of Harry Potter: Reducing prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(8), 513-527.

Subscribe now

Share

Once upon a time, the United States was known as an exporter of democracy and freedom, at least usually. Today, however, it increasingly exports something far less inspiring: conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and pseudohistory via social media. (1) Every day, these platforms churn out false information created both in America and by authoritarian regimes abroad. (2,3,4) As a result, the nation once seen as the champion of liberty, individual rights, and the rule of law has shifted from exporting freedom to exporting something far more corrosive, pseudoknowledge.

In this new American worldview, expertise matters less than ever. Scientific evidence regarding vaccines is now questioned by many. (4) Historical facts surrounding the American constitution are distorted. (6) And rational policy discussions have been replaced by blind partisan loyalty. (7) Thus, truth is no longer measured by evidence but by comfort, becoming something that can be chosen, edited, and tailored to fit one’s worldview.

Social media has supercharged this shift, becoming the primary news source for Americans and an increasingly important source for Europeans. (8,9) These platforms prioritize emotional narratives over factual accuracy, cultivating massive audiences around outrage and misinformation. As a result, pseudoknowledge has become one of America’s most powerful exports, spreading across Europe and beyond like a virus infiltrating democratic systems. (10)

The causes are complex, including broken political institutions, hyper-partisan media, and social media algorithms that prioritize conflict for profit over healthy political discourse. At a deeper level though, the problem stems from widespread gaps in societal education, particularly in civics, history, science, and critical thinking. (11,12,13) Resulting in a society that cannot critically evaluate the information it receives, making America ripe for consuming pseudoknowledge, and often incapable of fixing the systems that feed it. Consequently, as the United States, the most powerful and influential country with the largest economy, media footprint, and cultural megaphone, experiences democratic decay and treats facts as negotiable, the effects radiate globally, reshaping how other societies understand truth, knowledge, and governance.

Yet influence runs both ways. The rest of the world is not powerless before America’s export of pseudoknowledge. People abroad can choose not to play along when Americans indulge in misinformation or undermines democratic norms. A collective refusal to indulge this anti-intellectual turn could even push America to rediscover its professed values and help Europe resist its own challenges.

Regardless, history is being written as you read this. If the last century was defined by the power of American ideals, this one may be defined by the power of its delusions.

Subscribe now

Share

Sources

1. https://pirg.org/edfund/articles/misinformation-on-social-media/

2. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/05/01/disinformation-is-on-the-rise-how-does-it-work

3. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-europe-russia-disinformation-memorandum-b2823146.html

4. https://www.ft.com/content/f1de2d4f-a927-4d74-a667-4946b8d5298e

5. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/survey-reveals-growing-american-distrust-vaccines-covid-other-infectious-diseases

6. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122089076/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-yes-it-is

7. https://prri.org/research/trumps-unprecedented-actions-deepen-asymmetric-divides/

8. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93lzyxkklpo

9. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/19/young-europeans-face-rising-threat-from-misinformation-as-social-media-becomes-main-news-s

10. https://ecfr.eu/publication/maga-goes-global-trumps-plan-for-europe/

11. https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/healthy-democracies-need-to-invest-in-civic-education-heres-how-states-can-help/

12. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/11/14/americans-trust-in-scientists-positive-views-of-science-continue-to-decline/

13. https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/civics/new-study-finds-alarming-lack-of-civic-literacy-among-americans

Subscribe now

Share

History is filled with uncomfortable truths. Yet, for many, it’s easier to hold on to comfortable myths, which are simplified stories that gloss over the harsh realities of the past. One such area, rife with misinformation, is the Sixties Scoop, a dark chapter in Canadian history marked by the mass removal of Indigenous children from their families.

Today, a new kind of denialism tries to downplay its impact, recasting it as a good-hearted child welfare effort and breaking its connection to the ongoing crises in Indigenous Canadian communities. However, the historical record tells a different, much more devastating story. The notion that these removals were isolated incidents, benevolent, or a relic of the past is undermined by the weight of evidence. It reveals a systematic, policy-driven effort that caused trauma across generations.

What Was the Sixties Scoop?

Before we address the myths, we need to grasp the reality. The term “Sixties Scoop” refers to the large-scale removal of Indigenous children from their homes by provincial child welfare authorities, which took place from the 1950s through the 1980s. About 20,000 First Nations, Métis, and Inuit children were taken, often without their families’ consent, and placed in mostly non-Indigenous foster or adoptive homes across Canada, the United States, and even Europe (Indigenous Foundations, 2016).

This was not a series of random events. It resulted directly from a 1951 amendment to the Indian Act, which gave provinces control over Indigenous child welfare. Social workers, frequently lacking any understanding of Indigenous culture, entered communities and applied Euro-Canadian living standards to homes they deemed “unfit.” This set the stage for a national tragedy (IRSHDC, 2022).

The Anatomy of Denial

Denialism seldom appears as a blanket rejection of facts. Instead, it operates using a specific set of tactics: shifting the goalposts, selecting data to support its view, and creating false comparisons. Let’s break down the most common myths about the sixties scoop policy:

Myth 1: “It wasn’t a policy, just a few well-meaning social workers.”

This is perhaps the most persistent myth. People in denial ask for a single government document titled “The Sixties Scoop Policy.” When they find none, they declare the entire event a fabrication. This fundamentally misinterprets how systemic policies function. There was no single law, but the Scoop was undoubtedly the result of a policy framework and administrative changes.

The key policy was the 1951 amendment to the Indian Act. This change allowed provincial agents to operate on reservations, creating a legal pathway for mass removals. The results were immediate and dramatic. In British Columbia alone, the number of Indigenous children in provincial care skyrocketed from just 29 in 1951 to 1,466 by 1964 (Indigenous Foundations, 2016). This is not the work of a “few” individuals, it is the clear result of a systemic change.

Myth 2: “It was just standard adoption to protect neglected children.”

This argument falsely equates the consensual, culturally-aligned practice of adoption with the forced, cross-cultural removals that defined the “Scoop”. Evidence shows that social workers routinely misinterpret Indigenous family structures, communal child-rearing, and traditional diets as signs of neglect (Indigenous Foundations, 2016).

Moreover, a responsible child welfare system should strive to keep children within their families and communities whenever possible. The Sixties Scoop did the opposite. Children were systematically placed in non-Indigenous homes, severing their ties to their language, culture, and identity. Until policy changes in the 1980s, authorities often failed to notify a child’s band of their removal, making it nearly impossible for communities to step in or for families to locate their children (IRSHDC, 2022). This was not child protection; it continued the agenda of the residential school system, which was winding down just as the Scoop was accelerating.

Myth 3: “The harm is overstated, and it all ended decades ago.”

This claim dismisses the profound and long-lasting damage as mere anecdotes while ignoring the vast evidence of survivor testimony and research on intergenerational trauma. The trauma of the Scoop goes beyond a sad childhood; it involves a violent disruption of identity. Survivors report feeling alienated from both their adoptive white communities and the Indigenous communities they were taken from, struggling with a deep sense of not belonging anywhere (Indigenous Foundations, 2016). This dislocation is a direct cause of the higher rates of mental health issues, substance abuse, and family breakdown found in survivor populations.

This trauma did not end when the children grew up. It was passed down. When a generation lacks healthy parenting models and cultural identity, they often struggle to provide those things for their own children, perpetuating a cycle of pain (IFSD, 2023).

Most troubling, the system that enabled the Scoop has not entirely disappeared. The overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care continues in what many now call the “Millennium Scoop.” In 2016, Indigenous children made up a staggering 52.2% of children in foster care, despite accounting for only 7.7% of the child population in Canada. Although the removal system has been reformed, it is still operational.

Why The Truth Matters

Facing history or the past in general is not about placing blame; it is about acknowledging the truth. The denialist playbook focuses on picking selected success stories, asking for impossible proof, and leaving out important context from statistics. This approach aims to avoid responsibility and dismiss the experiences of tens of thousands of survivors.

The historical record is clear: the Sixties Scoop was a systemic process, empowered by federal policy and executed by provincial authorities, continuing the destructive legacy of residential schools. It caused deep, multi-generational harm that is closely tied to the social and health crises facing Indigenous peoples today.

Recognizing this uncomfortable truth is the only basis on which genuine understanding and reconciliation can be built.

Subscribe now

Share

Sources

Hanson, E. (2016). Sixties Scoop. Indigenous Foundations, University of British Columbia. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/sixties_scoop/

Indian Residential School History and Dialogue Centre (IRSHDC). (2022). The child welfare system and the Sixties Scoop. University of British Columbia. https://irshdc.ubc.ca/learn/the-child-welfare-system-and-the-sixties-scoop/

Gillis-Kendall, S. (2023). Intergenerational Trauma to Intergenerational Transmission. Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD), University of Ottawa. https://ifsd.ca/2023/04/intergenerational-trauma-to-intergenerational-transmission/

Subscribe now

Share

Born and raised in southern Brazil in the 1990s, I grew up hearing about food taboos that have shaped—and still shape—my relationship with food. These beliefs, passed down from generation to generation, operate as a cultural veil that imposes symbolic limits on what we can or cannot consume. In a country marked by its colonial history, such practices carry not only fears and prohibitions, but also deep meanings that guide the way we eat, offer, and perceive food.

Among these taboos, the one that left the strongest mark on me was the pseudoscientific danger of mixing milk with mango. Two accessible and nutritious foods - one rich in calcium, the other in vitamins and fiber - but when combined, they supposedly carried the risk of severe harm, or even death. This idea was echoed in my food memory throughout childhood: if I had eaten mango and then, hours later, drank chocolate milk, I was certainly overwhelmed by the cruel anxiety that a tragedy was imminent.

Reliving this experience as a child, I felt as if I were caught in a mythical prohibition that, despite the foods being easily within a child’s reach—in the fruit bowl or refrigerator—made me sense they should be kept somewhere more securely guarded, stirring my food memories. Basically, at the back of my mind, I kept asking myself: why is it so much easier to mix mango and milk than to buy a pack of cigarettes? Both could harm me just the same way.

Nowadays, this belief is fading, whether due to scientific studies already conducted on the subject (VIEIRA, 2010) or the weakening transmission of such myths to new generations.

I recall, with a comedic tone, that sketches on television shows would reproduce the imagination of this danger, where characters resorted to consuming the two foods together as a last resource in extreme situations. These scenes played with the taboo’s popular influence with exaggeration and humor. In a way, this already communicated that the belief was, at that moment, leaning more toward fantasy than reason.

But taboos don’t form solely due to a lack of scientific knowledge. They arise in specific contexts, with a clear social function: to order, protect, and warn (CANESQUI & GARCIA, 2005). As Lévi-Strauss (1964) pointed out, food is not merely a physiological necessity but a symbolic system through which societies classify the world, distinguishing the pure from the impure, the permitted from the forbidden. Thus, more than dietary rules, taboos reveal deep structures of cultural thought.

Although there is a lack of definitive scientific studies that conclusively trace the origin of the taboo, one of the most widely accepted explanations today is the following: The taboo around mixing mango with milk dates back to the period of slavery in Brazil, between the 17th and 19th centuries. According to various historical narratives, the “senhores de engenho” - land and people owners - restricted milk consumption due to it being considered a noble food for members of the elite. Mangoes, on the other hand, were abundant and easily accessible to the enslaved. To prevent them from eating what was reserved for the dominant classes, the rumor spread that mixing the two was dangerous, even lethal.

Additionally, despite research being scarce and scattered, medical and historiographical studies, such as those by Vieira (2010), claim slave-era origins for this belief. And that what we observe is a very common social and symbolic control mechanism based on the racial and economic stratification of colonial society. By restricting access to certain foods, not only a material barrier was established but also a symbolic hierarchy around what one can or cannot consume—and, therefore, who one can or cannot.

Over time, these interdictions spread across different regions of the country. The research conducted by Trigo et al. (1989) in northern Brazil identified the taboo as one of the most recurrent among the families interviewed. Even though geographically distant from that context, I experienced the same regulatory effects of this belief in my childhood in the south of the country.

I remember the genuine fear of the possibility that I had unknowingly broken an invisible rule: having eaten mango before drinking milk. A simple superstition, due to inherited cultural beliefs—not only from my family but from a long lineage of cultural narratives.

Beliefs like this are not mere popular misconceptions: they are symbolic inheritances we receive from our ancestors and from the ways our society was constituted and organized. They remind us that, in Brazil, eating is also a historical, political, and emotional act. Each food carries not only nutrients—it carries ideas, struggles, unspoken feelings, and memories. Eating, after all, also tells a story of the body and the culture of a society.

Subscribe now

Share

Sources:

CANESQUI, AM., and GARCIA, RWD., orgs. Antropologia e nutrição: um diálogo possível. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FIOCRUZ, 2005. 306 p. Antropologia e Saúde collection

LÉVI-STRAUSS, Claude. O cru e o cozido. São Paulo: Cosac Naify, 2007.

TRIGO, Marlene et al. Food taboos in a region of northern Brazil. Revista de Saúde Pública, São Paulo, v. 23, n. 6, p. 455-464, 1989. VIEIRA, Enio Cardillo. "Taboos, myths and superstitions in nutrition." Revista Médica de Minas Gerais, v. 20, n. 3, p. 371–374, 2010.

VIEIRA, Enio Cardillo. Tabus, mitos e crendices em nutricões. In: Rev Med Minas Gerais. 2010; 20(3): 371-374

Subscribe now

Share

A common trope about history, is that history is written by the victors. An idea that can be true but is certainly not always the case. A notable example is the American Civil War, which lasted from 1861-1865. For instance, one would expect that after the Confederate States of America were defeated by the United States of America that they would be forever tarnished in American history as traitors and villains. After all, the Confederacy’s goal of rebelling was to preserve the institution of slavery and the war killed about 620,000 Americans.[1] However, the Confederacy's legacy persists in the Southern United States, where the Confederate flag commonly remains a symbol of Southern pride. Yet, many who proudly display it have overlooked its historical association with racism and slavery.[2]  This is where pseudohistory comes into play, because many Southerners view the Civil War not as a battle over slavery, but as one over Southern state rights—a narrative termed "The Lost Cause Myth" by historians, which endures today. As a matter of fact, polling from recent years suggests that about 30% of Americans still believe the Civil War was primarily about state rights rather than slavery.[3]  Additionally, this type of pseudohistory is prominent enough that politicians will even cater to it. In December of 2023 for instance, the then Republican Presidential candidate Nikki Haley purposefully didn’t mention slavery as a cause of the Civil War to avoid alienating Southern voters.[4] 

In reality though, the Civil War was unequivocally about slavery, not state rights—unless one interprets "state rights" as the right to own slaves. For example, the Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens, stated just before the war began in 1861, “African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the (N)egro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”[5] Furthermore, this truth was acknowledged after the war by the leader of the Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee, who remarked, "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South."[6] And beyond this, an examination of the documents declaring secession by various Confederate states reveals numerous references to slavery, underscoring its pivotal role as the primary catalyst for the war as seen below:

Georgia, 1861: “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.”

Mississippi, 1861: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.”

South Carolina, 1860: “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.”

Texas, 1861: “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.”

Virginia, 1861: “The Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.”[7]

Therefore, it is disturbing how so many Americans still fail to recognize slavery as the driving force behind the Civil War. But, it is not all that surprising if you think about it. After all, in the modern era where slavery is thankfully universally condemned, few wish to defend those who fought to maintain it. Yet, for many Southerners, grappling with the legacy of their own ancestors who fought for the Confederacy poses a personal dilemma, because they don't want to feel ashamed of their family's past. It's a sentiment I understand intimately, given that half of my own ancestry hails from the American South. In fact, I have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy and some who even owned slaves, while the other half of my family fought for the North against slavery.

As a result, it can be tricky to make sense of why people would fight for the Confederacy when examined through the lens of modern morality. It is crucial though, to recognize that the moral standards of the past often fall short of those of contemporary values. Exploring one's family history often reveals a mix of admirable and problematic actions, reflecting the complexity of human nature across different eras. And that’s okay, because our goal as a society is to not to be ashamed of our history, but instead be better than those who came before us and recognize the good and bad of our predecessors. Also, we must remember that future generations will likely perceive our own actions today as morally flawed, and so we must acknowledge the complexity of the past and the importance of the historical context in which people lived, if we truly want to understand its complexity. For instance, during the civil war we know that the vast majority of soldiers fighting for the Confederate Army did not own slaves themselves and thus were not protecting their personal ownership of slaves, but instead believed they were protecting their society from Northern aggression, and that the South had the right to preserve slavery.[8] This is an idea that recently led some to claim that the war could have been prevented through negotiations and thus partly faulted Abraham Lincoln for the war. Historically though, prior to the war there were many attempts at negotiations in Congress to preserve slavery in order to prevent war and even Abraham Lincoln was willing to preserve slavery to prevent a civil war, but the Southern States refused to believe him.[9] [10]

Ergo, for many in the South during the 1860s if a person was taught from a young age to believe that slavery wasn’t immoral, as people believed for most of human history, then supporting the Confederate cause seemed logical from their perspective. For example, after the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln, which freed all slaves in the nation. My own ancestor Patience Baldwin expressed an interesting dilemma during the Civil War in a letter to her husband, emphasizing that the war was about slavery and that they never owned any slaves. Therefore, she simply wished for the war to end and that the freed slaves and Union soldiers would just go to the North and leave the Confederacy alone.[11] Because during the war her own husband Benjamin Thomas Rush would enlist based around the idea of defending the Southern way of life and later die of the measles, costing Patience the love of her life. In fact, years before the outbreak of the Civil War Patience and Benjamin made a huge sacrifice fleeing North Carolina to Mississippi, due to Benjamin’s own family disowning him, because he had married a woman from a lower class out of love. And so, their story highlights the personal sacrifices made by Southern families, especially those without slaves, who had little to gain from the conflict beyond the Southern way of life that they were convinced to believe in. Patience's poignant letter underscores the human toll of the war on ordinary lives as seen below: “Dear Benj. Its been lonely and cold with you gone, we aint never had a slave and I wish all of them, and those blue varmits (Union soldiers) were back up North. There isn't a reason for me to mail this. Your Baptist preacher just came and said you died at Grenada. Lord God? Aint there no help for this widow woman. I know you are dead but I want it on paper. I know I was to be your wife forever but it is mighty lonely without you. Your cousin Rick Rush asked me to marry him. It won't be you but the 4 boys will have a Papa with the same name. This will go in the family bible so that they understand I still love you.”

So, in conclusion, the popularity of the Confederacy today serves as a crucial reminder of the significance of history education within a society. Because when historical facts can be easily distorted to the extent that politicians begin promoting pseudohistorical narratives, it signals a society in urgent need of a reality check. In turn, it's imperative to safeguard against the encroachment of pseudohistory, by ensuring that factual, evidence-based history remains paramount. Otherwise, without vigilant attention to historical accuracy, there's a risk that pseudohistory could eventually supplant true history.

[1] Faust, Drew Gilpin “Death and Dying.” National Parks Service. https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/national_cemeteries/death.html#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20soldiers%20who,and%20the%20Korean%20War%2C%20combined.

[2] Sanders, Linley. "What the Confederate flag means in America today." YouGov. 2020. https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/27278-what-confederate-flag-means-america-today

[3] Bialik, Carl and Taylor Orth. "What do Americans think about the Civil War?" YouGov. 2023. https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45912-what-do-americans-think-about-civil-war

[4] Cavazos, Nidia. "Nikki Haley defends leaving slavery out as cause of Civil War after backlash." CBS News. 2023. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nikki-haley-fails-to-mention-slavery-when-asked-about-cause-of-civil-war-new-hampshire-town-hall/

[5] Jacobson, Louis. "What Donald Trump and Nikki Haley got wrong about the Civil War." 2024. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/what-donald-trump-and-nikki-haley-got-wrong-about-the-civil-war/

[6] Murchison, William. "Robert E. Lee is the uniter America has been looking for." The Dallas Morning News. 2017. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/18/robert-e-lee-is-the-uniter-america-has-been-looking-for/

[7] The American Battlefield Trust. "The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States." The American Battlefield Trust. 2024. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Mississippi

[8] Graham. Chris. "Myths and Misunderstandings: Slaveholding and the Confederate Soldier." American Civil War Museum. https://acwm.org/blog/myths-and-misunderstandings-slaveholding-and-confederate-soldier/#:~:text=The%20initial%20fact%20is%20true,life%20and%20the%20Confederate%20military.

[9]  Gans, Jared. "Trump says Civil War could have been negotiated." The Hill. 2024. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4395612-trump-civil-war-negotiated/

[10] Fromer, Frederic. "The 13th Amendment nearly preserved slavery — with Lincoln’s support." The Washington Post. 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/06/19/13th-amendment-lincoln-preserve-slavery/

[11] Baldwin, Patience. "Letter to Benjamin Thomas Rush During the American Civil War." 1860s.