Transcripts
Transcript for Figure 1.11, Brené Brown on Empathy vs Sympathy
[Music.]
[Brené Brown]: So what is empathy and why is it very different than sympathy? Empathy fuels connection, sympathy drives disconnection. Empathy, it’s a very interesting concept. Teresa Wiseman is a nursing scholar who studied diverse professions where empathy is relevant and came up with four qualities of empathy: perspective-taking, the ability to take the perspective of another person or recognize their perspective as their truth; staying out of judgment, not easy when you enjoy it as much as most of us do; recognizing emotion in other people; and then communicating that.
Empathy is feeling with people, and to me, I always think of empathy as this kind of sacred space. When someone’s in kind of a deep hole and they shout out from the bottom and they say, “I’m stuck, it’s dark, I’m overwhelmed,” and then we look and we say, “Hey, come down. I know what it’s like down here, and you’re not alone.” Sympathy is, “Oh, it’s bad. Uh-huh. No, you want a sandwich?”
It is a vulnerable choice because in order to connect with you, I have to connect with something in myself that knows that feeling. Rarely, if ever, does an empathic response begin with, “At least I had a…” and we do it all the time because, you know, someone just shared something incredibly painful and we’re trying to silver lining it. I don’t think that’s a verb, but I’m using it as one. We’re trying to put a little lining around it. So, “I had a miscarriage; at least you know you can get pregnant.” “I think my marriage is falling apart; at least you have a marriage.” “John’s getting kicked out of school; at least Sarah is an A student.”
But one of the things we do sometimes in the face of very difficult conversations is we try to make things better. If I share something with you that’s very difficult, I’d rather you say, “I don’t even know what to say right now. I’m just so glad you told me,” because the truth is, rarely can a response make something better. What makes something better is connection.
[Music.]
Licenses and Attributions for Transcript for Figure 1.11, Brené Brown on Empathy vs Sympathy
Transcript for “Brené Brown on Empathy vs Sympathy” by Diana Simon Psihoterapeut is included under fair use.
Transcript for Figure 2.9, The Origin of Race in the U.S.
[Danielle Bainbridge, host]: Did you know that race was not always considered a biological or genetic category? So how did we come to understand it that way today?
We all have a working definition of race. Whether you kinda understand it, hate it, claim to not see it, or study it (hint hint, cough cough: that’s me), it still plays a role in all of our daily lives. From the way that people interact, to the places they live and stereotypes they face, race is still a determining factor in our social structures, both inside and outside of the U.S. But full disclosure, I do a lot of U.S. history so this is a U.S. specific video about race, since these histories operate differently across various contexts.
Ok, so let’s get started by asking: What were some of the earliest definitions of “race”? Well, before we started thinking of race along the lines of biology, genetics, or phenotype (aka physical appearance) did you know that it was largely considered a category of kinship or group affiliation?
In the 16th century, we started to see the use of the word race in English, but it isn’t attributed to physical traits or behavior. It meant, quite literally, that you were all members of the same household, group, or shared a common ancestor. But, when did “race” shift to being less about kinship groups, to sounding more complicated than the lyrics to “I’m my own grandpa”? Well we can see that starting in the colonial era.
And that brings us to our second question: Why did we see the shift in the idea of race in the 17th and 18th century? The answer to this question is firmly rooted in two things: the rise of global capitalism that was backed by slavery and colonialism, and a period of theorizations in Europe known as the Enlightenment.
When the Spanish began the colonization of the Caribbean, and later Latin America, after 1492, they looked to Native populations to mine silver and gold under brutal working conditions. They set about enslaving, attacking, and murdering those who didn’t comply. Thousands of Native people died as a result of overwork, genocide, or because they were exposed to new diseases brought over with the Spanish settlers.
And when England established its first successful long-term colonies in North America in Virginia in 1607, they looked to mirror this pattern of enslavement with Native people, while also seeking copious amounts of silver and gold. But they had limited success with this route because: 1) Virginia wasn’t exactly rich in gold and 2) Native populations were able to resist the efforts of early settlers through fighting back, or escaping and blending into adjacent Native groups. English settlers still wanted to make money off of this venture so they began to look to alternative ways of making Virginia profitable, and that came in the form of tobacco. But a major problem with growing tobacco is that it requires a ton of labor, and the laborers needed the agricultural skills to turn the crop into cash. Because they had already met with sustained resistance from Native populations, English settlers looked to other potential labor sources: enslaved Africans and indentured British laborers.
There are some important distinctions to make between these two groups. First, indenture was a contractual agreement with fixed terms that varied widely. Some indentured servants were brought to the colonies against their will either as a punishment or because they were children. Terms of these contracts were often very exploitative. But many came willingly in exchange for their passage to the new colonies. Many of these indentured servants finished the terms of their contracts and began lives as property owners.
Enslavement of Africans was an entirely different category of labor from indenture. Because 1) Slavery was for life, not for a fixed term or number of years. 2) Slaves were not considered human. 3) It was not a contract, because it takes two consenting humans to enter into a contract. And 4) Slave laws were enacted codifying hereditary slavery, meaning that if you were enslaved and had children, then those children would also remain in slavery.
With the expansion of this system there was understandably some resistance, even from Europeans. So in order to continue to justify slavery we start to see the pseudoscience of “race” emerge that connected physical features, behavior, and legal rights, right around the 18th century when colonial use of slaves was expanding. Anthropologist Audrey Smedley notes that “scientific” ideas about physical appearance and racial difference in the 18th century were largely “folk” ideas used to justify already existent social norms.
So as a result of a desire to perpetuate systems of exploitation, more and more distinctions were made about the supposed differences amongst races, primarily the differences of black people from their white counterparts. This evolution of race became more concretized after social structures of slavery were in place and not before and was solidified by the Enlightenment.
Which brings us to our third question: How did the Enlightenment impact definitions of race? The Enlightenment was a period of primarily European thought and ideological development that saw the emergence of some key concepts that tie back into today’s discussion. First: there was a push in scientific communities to categorize the natural world using “reason” and creating elaborate hierarchical systems that emphasized the similarities between different species and subgroups and the inherent differences amongst others. And race was fitted into this same mold.
As European theorists looked to classify the world into “scientific” groupings, physical markers that were already established social norms through enslavement and genocide were ways that they sought to “prove” that this was the “natural” order and not a social construction. For example, Thomas Jefferson, who was a proponent of concepts like individual liberty and freedom for white men or those he considered his peers, also made claims that black slaves required less sleep than their European counterparts to justify excruciatingly long and inhumane work hours. And Samuel Cartwright, who falsely claimed that “drapetomania” was a mental defect that caused enslaved black people to run away from slavery, as if wanting to escape a lifetime of enslavement was…illogical?
The Enlightenment formulation of History also played a crucial role in the development of social ideologies of race. Kang, Hegel, and other philosophers of their day claimed that certain racial groups stood outside of history or had no history, and this included all groups that they considered non-white or outside of European ideals of modernity. This meant that groups that were devoid of history and culture were inherently less valuable and therefore subordinate to other races. They were cast as the natural sacrifices of supposed “progress.”
These assumptions were also codified into law in the 18th and 19th century. The first naturalization laws of the United States in 1790, limited naturalized citizenship to “free white persons” and excluded other groups. Children born of enslaved mothers were said to inherit the legal statuses of their mother, effectively keeping them in bondage perpetually. And Native Americans were often denied legal property rights, which helped to expedite the process of Westward expansion across the North American continent. And “anti-miscegenation” laws were drafted in order to assure that people from different racial backgrounds did not intermarry or have children in order to protect ideals of racial purity. But these racial categorizations did not always neatly align with skin tone.
In his book Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race, historian Matthew Jacobson notes that in the U.S. “White” or “Caucasian” was not always considered a unified race composed of anyone of European descent.
Whiteness was often considered exclusive to Anglo-Saxon descendants, while other European
groups were broken into different ethnic categories such as “Celt,” “Slavs,” “Iberics,”
and “Hebrews,” which were considered separate races from the 1840s to the early 20th century.
But in the 1920s, when there was a stemming of migration from Europe, these different races were subsumed into one category called “whiteness” to shore up a cultural majority against other racial groups and immigrants. And this persisted throughout the 20th century.
So how does it all add up? Well, race started as a marker of kinship. But then we see it shift to become less about familial inheritance and more focused on physical indicators due to the rise of Enlightenment reasoning and labor exploitation.
But where does that leave us today? Well, in the past several decades scholars have noted both an uptick in identifying with your ethnic history, for example pride in your country or culture of origin, instead of just being “white” or “black.” But we’ve also seen a revival of outdated theories of race being biologically determined and attached to certain traits, like considering all people of one physical type as prone to certain behaviors. But regardless of how people identify themselves, race continues to be a complex topic of discussion and debate.
With that final thought in mind: Do you have any other historical points to add to the evolution of “race”? And how has race been used in both positive and negative contexts throughout history?
Definitely be sure to check out the works cited this week, since there was a LOT of material and ground to cover and this was only just the surface! Well that’s it for this week. Drop them below, like, share, and subscribe and we’ll see you next week!
[Hey guys, thanks for all of your comments last week on “what would happen if Islamic
armies had won at the Battle of Tours?” Here’s what some of you had to say: Rachel on Facebook speculates that European architecture would have been much different and perhaps the influence of Moorish architecture would have spread past Portugal and Spain and into France. Thanks for watching, Rachel! PoseidonXIII on YouTube (who is a person, and I’m assuming not an aquatic God?) says that he’s really digging the new format of the episodes and enjoying the hypothetical questions. Thanks for watching from under the sea, Poseidon!
And our last shoutout is actually from our American Revolution episode, I wanted to say “hi” to Mr. Miller’s class in North Carolina, I heard you were finishing up your unit on the American Revolution and used our video in class. That’s super awesome! Stay curious and thanks for watching. So that’s it for now, and we’ll see you next week!]
Licenses and Attributions for Transcript for Figure 2.9, The Origin of Race in the U.S.
Transcript for “The Origin of Race in the U.S.” by PBS Origins is included under fair use.
Transcript for Figure 3.7, The Non-Violent Communication Model.
Styles of communication
There are two styles of communication, violent and nonviolent — and a whole spectrum in between.
Violent communication
Violent communication is coercive, manipulative and hurts. It includes making generalizations
and a use of language that induces fear, shame or guilt. It is often ineffective since it diverts our
attention away from clarifying our actual needs and distracts us from solving the actual conflict.
Nonviolent communication
Nonviolent Communication is based on the idea that we all share universal human desires such as the need for trust, safety, and appreciation. It allows us to empathize and think clearly. And as a result, reach a better and more honest understanding of each other.
Four steps of nonviolent communication
Nonviolent Communication follows 4 steps: observation, feeling, needs and requests. To understand how it works, let’s imagine a college student being late for class. Old Jay, her former teacher, would usually have just said, “And here she comes again, late Ann.” In class he then would give her a hard time and after – as his form of punishment – a bunch of senseless assignments. Then, both would often feel bad for the rest of the day. New Jay, who’s her current teacher, learned about Nonviolent Communication and knows that it begins with a clear observation.
Observation
During observation he tries noticing concrete facts – things that happen at that very moment. New Jay jots down that Ann arrived 20 minutes late and that his pulse is up – possibly a sign of stress. Note that sharing observations should not be combined with evaluating them, because then others can hear criticism and naturally resist.
Feelings
When focusing on his feelings, New Jay connects with his heart and can learn to understand various underlying emotions. This is important because what seems to be anger, might in fact be sadness. During this step it is essential to distinguish feelings from thoughts. After class, New Jay shares his observation and explains to Ann that he feels disrespected when someone is late for his class.
Needs
Knowing his needs is important because it allows him to enrich his life, and feel at peace. If we disregard our needs or don’t live up to our values, we experience stress and frustration.
Understanding that we all have universal human needs is perhaps the most important step in the process. New Jay tells Ann that they should find a way to respect each other’s values and desires.
Request
Lastly there is the Request, which clarifies what future New Jay wants for himself and this relationship. Clear requests are hence crucial to a transformative communication. When
we ask for concrete actions, we often find creative ways to ensure that everyone’s needs
are met. New Jay asks Ann not to come to class at all, if she happens to run later than 1 minute.
Marshall Rosenberg
Marshall Rosenberg, who developed the model, liked to show the differences between the communication styles with two animals. The Jackal was a symbol of aggression, dominance and violent communication. The Giraffe with his long neck and big heart represents a clear-sighted and compassionate speaker and nonviolent communication style. “All violence,” Rosenberg wrote, “is the result of people tricking themselves into believing that their pain derives from other people and that consequently those people deserve to be punished.”
What are your thoughts on this model? Share your thoughts in the comments below
and check the description for more details, and interesting links about the topic.
[This and all other Sprouts’ videos are licensed under the Creative Commons. That means teachers from all around the world can use them in classrooms, online courses or to start
projects – and today, thousands already do! To learn how it works and download this video without ads or background music, checkout our website or read the description below. If you want to support our mission and help change education visit our Patreon – that’s patreon.com/sprouts.]
Licenses and Attributions for Transcript for Figure 3.7, The Non-Violent Communication Model.
Transcript for “The Non-Violent Communication Model” by Sprouts is included under fair use.
Transcript for Figure 3.10, Beyond the Cliff | Laura van Dernoot Lipsky
[Laura van Dernoot Lipsky]: Eighteen years ago, I found myself standing on top of a very tall cliff having what I would only come to recognize many years later as a near psychotic break. It would be fair for you to ask if I had always been that on edge and the answer is no. But, as many of you, I imagine, can relate, how I found myself on top of that cliff on that particular day was by way of a very long road. Like so many others, my childhood was filled with a lot of love and many challenges. Life came into particularly sharp focus for me when I was 10 years old. My mom, who was the healthiest person any of us knew, went into a doctor’s appointment for what everyone thought would be diagnosed with pneumonia at the worst, and returned home having been told she had a very rare form of lung cancer, they gave her three months to live; she lived for three years, much of that time with one lung.
So she died when I was 13, and the sun rose and set with my mom and I entered into my adolescence feeling if continuing to live wasn’t going to be impossible, it was going to be highly improbable. So I navigated high school with a lot of over achieving; I spent my days getting straight A’s and working three jobs, and I spent my nights planning on how I could end my life without causing my older brother who had always been my protector and my role model too much pain.
I did make it through high school and then I landed in college and I found myself sitting in one of those very large lecture halls. And my professor at the time, Professor Richard Applebaum, was talking to us about suffering on this one particular morning and particularly he was talking about homelessness, and he was talking about it in a way that allowed time to stand still for me. He was building on what so many traditions have taught us for the beginning of time really that in life it is said there’s equal measure of brutality and beauty of pain and pleasure of annihilating moments and of sublime moments. And yet there was a way he was talking about it, this whole conversation about equanimity that was completely new to me. Because during those three years when my brother and I were taking care of our mom, we were surrounded by a number of very, very loving people and kind people who gave us a lot of support for appearing to be stoic, for seeming to be strong, and for holding it all together.
And what Professor Applebaum was talking about on that morning is when one is engaged in suffering, there is so much more to it than holding it all together. So what I knew was I wanted more of whatever he had going on. So I went up to him after class, asked how I could help. He scribbled on a piece of paper the name and number of our local homeless shelter’s director. And that’s when I started volunteering at age 18, spending the nights regularly volunteering in a homeless shelter. I went on to work with all forms of trauma and always within this kind of larger backdrop of systematic oppression and liberation theory. And what I knew was I was so grateful that I had found something that made sense to me and that I felt passionate about.
What I had no idea and wouldn’t know for years to come was to what degree having borne witness to the suffering of my mom, and then the subsequent years of bearing witness to so much suffering with so many people, to what degree that was taking a toll on me. And this is something that wise people have passed down for a long time and we know more and more about now because of the advances in neuroscience and the wonderful research that many of my colleagues have done. But at the time, I had no idea about this cumulative toll. So one of the ways that the toll can show up is for those of you who are doing work.
There are folks who do work and as a result of the work you do, you might be exposed to things, either because of the content of what you’re doing, but what a lot of my colleagues say is like, look, the work itself is the least of my concern. It’s all my colleagues who put me over the edge, right? So sometimes the toll is because of the work. Sometimes the toll is because of the caretaking we do in our lives.
Here she’s saying, I feel like I need you less and less, Mom, now that I can make myself feel guilty all on my own.
So much of the toll we feel is because many, many, many of you are caretaking in your personal lives. You’re caretaking those around you, you’re at home tending for folks who are returning from wars, folks who are ill, people who are in need in the community.
Sometimes the toll we feel is because of the suffering of other living beings. This is Chris Jordan’s wonderful work.
And sometimes it’s because of what’s going on ecologically on the planet itself. This is the work of Vance Friedenberg. He’s one of the leading scientists looking at the sixth mass extinction.
But what we know is that when humans are exposed to suffering, hardship, crisis, trauma of humans, other living beings, or the planet itself, there’s a cumulative toll. And there’s a toll on us individually. There’s a toll on your immediate relationships. There’s a toll organizationally for those of you who have this exposure in your work.
Institutionally, systemically, we see it in movements we’re a part of. We’re seeing it throughout all of our communities and society as a whole.
She’s saying, speaking personally, I haven’t had my day and I’ve never met any dog who has.
The other piece of this that’s very important, at least when I do this work, is it’s always held in a larger context of systematic oppression. You know this so well, but a reminder that the degree to which you’re impacted by the lives you’re living and the work you’re doing is intimately tied to the fact that we’re in a society with so much supremacy. And if we’re in a society where there’s no oppression, there’s no racism, sexism, homophobia, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, classism, and xenophobia, so much of the suffering we are tending to wouldn’t exist and the remaining bits that exist in life, we would all be affected by that so differently.
I have no doubt that all of you have so much more insight and personal awareness than I did back in the day, and that, for those of you who know what this toll is and when you feel this toll, either because of what’s going on in your personal lives or on the job, that you’re able to identify it. But I was not at all able to identify it. So it was about 10 years into my career when a critical mass of people started kind of getting up in my face doing that, hey, Laura, you’re tripping. You should take some time off. And I’m sure somebody said something earlier than 10 years in, but I was very stubborn and successfully ignored them.
But 10 years in is when there was a critical mass of people up in my grill really begging me to look at this. And what some of you will appreciate is that, a number of those people were clients I was serving, which you can imagine is always so disconcerting, you know, survivors of domestic violence living in a shelter who can’t go anywhere, begging me not to come to work. So people were doing their due diligence, right? But at the time, I was so arrogant. I was incredibly cocky and I was entirely self-righteous. I was doing God’s work. You could either step up and help me do God’s work or you could step off, but I was definitely not gonna have a conversation with you about how I was affected by my job.
And like many of you possibly, I was raised in a number of traditions that implicitly and explicitly communicated: if you care enough about what you’re doing, if you are down with your cause enough, if it matters enough to you, you’re going to suck it up. So this whole conversation about how to sustain wasn’t something I was engaging in. But finally, the pressure mounted, I caved. I didn’t take any significant time off, but compromised – we took a short trip, went to visit our family who lived in the Caribbean. So on a particular day, we head out as a family on this hike and we get halfway through our hike and we summit where we wanted to summit, and there we are standing on the top of these cliffs, right?
So the family’s gathered around; tiny Caribbean island, standing on the top of these cliffs, looking out. The first thing I remember thinking was, this is so beautiful. The second thing I immediately thought was, I wonder how many people have killed themselves by jumping off of these cliffs, right? And at the time, I worked at Harborview Hospital, which you know is the level one trauma center for the whole Northwest. So it wasn’t my own suicidality at play anymore. It was because of the years of bearing witness to other suffering that naturally, instinctually, one starts triaging, of course, right? So you start thinking, where would the helicopter land? Does the helicopter land on the cliff and would you belay down to the person on the beach? Would the helicopter actually land on the beach?
Is there a Level One Trauma Center in the Caribbean, you ask yourself? Do they fly you to Miami? Would they stop you in customs? You know, you kind of go through the whole thing, right? So I said this out loud because I was merely presuming, I was just giving voice to inevitably what was going to come up in a family conversation because who stands on top of a cliff? And doesn’t wonder where the nearest Level One Trauma Center is? But apparently in my family, nobody was thinking that. So, it got even quieter than it had been; really long, very uncomfortable pause happened, and ultimately it was my stepfather-in-law who said, ‘Are you sure all this trauma work hasn’t gotten to you?’ And honestly, this was the first moment I had any insight into, you know, check it out.
There are people who can go on a hike and not wonder where the nearest level one trauma center is. But I’ll tell you, it wasn’t me; it wasn’t anybody I was hanging out with, right? Because one of the things about this toll is it’s slow-moving. It is very hard to gauge over time individually and collectively if we are being affected by what we’re exposed to. And also, what happens is we get very isolated. So this was one of those moments that maybe you’ve had where kind of everything starts flooding in, right? And then I was like, whoa, well, if this is the case, maybe it’s also the case that there’s people who still date out there in the world and those people who date aren’t doing background checks on everybody they date, right?
Maybe there’s people who can go to a playground. It’s just a lovely place for children. You’re not worried about, like, head injuries or Amber Alerts, right? But this is what happens that over time what you’re exposed to affects your entire worldview. There are so many ways that we can be affected individually and collectively by exposure to vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue, secondary trauma. Many people call it many different things. But this exposure affects all of us so differently. What I have found through the privilege of getting to work with everyone from zookeepers to judges, school teachers to nurses, ecologists to activists is that it is breathtaking the commonalities of how one is affected, right? So some of the ways we find you feel like you’re not doing enough, right?
So here they’re saying we just haven’t been flapping them hard enough. So this is where you feel like you’re not doing enough. You constantly feel like you should be doing more, right? Another one could be morale. So they’re saying I see you’ve done time, so working in a cubicle shouldn’t be a problem. So I work with organizations nationally, internationally, and one of the things we find so much is the morale, the very, very quickly eroding morale. Here he’s saying I bark at everything. You can’t go wrong that way. So hypervigilance, many people can relate to a sense of hypervigilance. This is where you lose your ability to flow in really fluidly in between your sympathetic and your parasympathatic nervous system. You become kind of in hyperarousal.
I had a colleague say to me, she was a child support enforcement officer, and she said to me, ‘I can tell you which one of my son’s friends are going to grow up to not pay their child support.’ And her son was five years old, right? Here he’s saying no, not there, please. That’s where I’m going to put my head. So exhaustion is something many people can relate to, and not the exhaustion before you work out, but this is an exhaustion where you are tired in your soul, you are tired in your spirit, you are tired throughout your bone marrow. All of your ancestors were tired people. There is the avoidance.
He’s saying no Thursdays out, how about never? Is never good for you?
This is where the best part of your day at work is where you don’t have to do your job. And then there’s the avoidance in our personal lives.
She’s saying it’s too late, Roger, they’ve seen us. Cynicism, many of you can relate to.
They’re saying, but she’ll come down eventually, and she’ll come down hard.
So what many of you might be able to relate to is not the pure cynicism, but the cynical humor. And then anger and resentment.
She’s saying it’s a new antidepressant. Instead of swallowing it, you throw it at anyone who appears to be having a good time.
And here he’s saying, ‘I can cure your back problem, but there’s a risk you’ll be left with nothing to talk about.’
So the other thing we see here is the externalizing that happens when more and more people are asked to do more with fewer resources. We see this whole seduction to externalizing. So this is where you start saying to yourself, ‘You know, I would actually be fine taking care of my loved ones if I could have different loved ones to take care of.’ Or people say, ‘I would love coming to my job every day if my immediate supervisor would just retire.’ And then there’s blind spots that we have.
So one of the things that we notice a lot that people have is blind spots. I’ll share the story to illustrate it. This is a water bottle. It says the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. It’s one of approximately over 100 water bottles I have in my home that have been gifted to me like incredible programs that many of you are involved with.
And every water bottle I have in my home has something stenciled on the side like this, which has domestic violence, sexual assault, HIV/AIDS, infant mortality, flood, hurricane, tornado, tsunami, death, destruction. And I’m just thinking this is great. I have water bottles. Every day is Earth Day here. This is fantastic. But what it also means is these are the water bottles that go with my kids to swim meets, basketball tournaments, soccer games. And I’m not thinking anything of it. But then I was unpacking my child’s lunch some time ago and I noticed that at school she found the provisions to kind of hack over the word sexual, right? So she’s not exactly old enough to know what sexual violence is.
She’s definitely old enough to know you’re not sitting at the lunch table at school with a water bottle that says domestic and sexual violence on it, right? I don’t know why, but I decided to tell this story at a very large conference of police officers. And when the break came, a police officer came up to me two centimeters from my face, $20 in her hand, and said, ‘Go get your kid a proper water bottle.’ I feel like you know things have gone very wrong in life when you’ve got the cops giving you cash, instructing you on parenting, right? And then dogma and self-righteousness, okay? So here he’s saying, ‘Your mother and I are separating because I want what’s best for the country and your mother doesn’t.’ And then addictions, which many of us can relate to.
She’s saying, ‘Of course I drink during the day. I’m way too tired to drink at night.’
And numbing. So here he’s saying, could we have the dosage? I still have feelings.
One of the things I want to say to us about numbing, it is incredibly seductive with the volume and the intensity of suffering on the planet today. It is incredibly tempting and seductive to become numb. And what I want to offer to you is how critical it is that we continue to strive to cultivate our capacity to be present. One of the reasons we want so much to be present is we remind ourselves, with everything that’s out of our control every single day, one of the things that remains in our control at any given time is your ability to bring your exquisite quality of presence to what you are doing and to how you are being.
That presence we know can interrupt the systematic oppression which is causing so much harm and can transform the trauma that is arising. It is very easy to get in that place of, ‘You have no idea what my life would be like if you lived here,’ or ‘If you did my job,’ or ‘If you saw what I saw,’ and that’s when we call on our ancestors and that’s when we call on so many people who have come before us who remind us that when they could not change anything external, they were able to shift everything as a result of where they put their focus.
And again, I don’t know any of you personally, but the assumption I’m going to make is none of us would go up against any of these folks, right? You’re not going to, oh Desmond, I know things got rough for you in South Africa, what with apartheid and all, but here in Washington State, we got a few things going on, right? Here he’s saying this is the barn where we keep our feelings. If a feeling comes to you, bring it here and lock it up. The other reason I want to, bring us back to presence, is I want to remind you that while I know we have so many different life circumstances, I believe we have a shared ethic of doing no harm. If you are numb, you will not be able to gauge whether or not you’re doing harm.
And if we believe in what Chief Sealth talks about with the web of life, or what Martin Luther King talked about with the single garment of destiny, you all know so well that there are so many parts of this web that are profoundly compromised. And many of you are bringing heart and soul to tremendous sacrifice to tend to parts of this web that are compromised. If the way you’re doing that out there means in any way you are neglecting your immediate part of the web, cutting off circulation to your immediate part of the web, lighting your immediate part of the web on fire, it is not ethical practice, it’s not integrity-based practice, it’s not sustainable. The other piece with numbing out, and what we’ve learned from so many people who’ve come before us and in so many traditions, is you don’t get to selectively numb.
So if you’re going to numb out your sorrow, you’re also going to numb out any possible happiness you can have. If you are going to numb out the heartbreak, you’re going to numb out any ability to survive noticing what is beautiful. And the other thing is your mind and body and spirit will keep trying to bring itself back to a full range of feelings of that whole equanimity and that spaciousness. Which means that’s why, you know, you can work on coalition after coalition of peace building and then you get in the lunch line or on the freeway and you don’t let anybody merge in front of you. Right? And we defend that. We say how I conduct myself on that freeway or when I’m getting my food at lunch has nothing to do with the other work I’m doing.
Howard Thurman reminds us, don’t ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and then go and do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive. So we remember that with the magnitude of suffering at play on the planet right now, we are in desperate need of folks who have the wherewithal and who have the courage to be present. We know from that place of presence it is possible to aspire to do no harm. It is possible to transform whatever trauma arises. And it is possible to continue to work to dismantle the systematic oppression which is causing such a legacy of suffering. From that place of presence we know that it is possible to metabolize whatever arises in life. The waves of life which will continue to present to us what they present. There is a way to metabolize that and integrate it so that over time, you find that it contributes to your awakening. That the longer we get to walk on this planet, we find we have deeper compassion, vaster humility, and we are able to come up and out of the narrow places. And from that place of cultivated presence, we remember that it is possible to create and to sustain an ability to be truly transformative. Thank you.
Licenses and Attributions for Transcript for Figure 3.10, Beyond the Cliff | Laura van Dernoot Lipsky
Transcript for “Beyond the Cliff | Laura van Dernoot Lipsky | TEDxWashingtonCorrectionsCenterforWomen” by TEDx Talks is included under fair use.
Transcript for Figure 6.3, 2019 Income, Poverty and Health Insurance – Health Insurance Presentation
[Music.]
[Sharon Stern, Assistant Division Chief, Employment Characteristics]: Health insurance coverage is an important measure of our nation’s overall well-being. Whether it’s illness, injury, or preventative needs, health insurance provides greater access to medical care, protection from high unexpected costs, and more economic stability.
Each year, the Census Bureau provides data on health insurance coverage. We look at who is and isn’t covered, where they live, and what type of insurance they have. Policymakers use this information to make data-driven decisions.
[Larissa Makita, Branch Chief, Health and Disability Statistics]: This is Larissa Makita, Health and Disability Statistics Branch Chief, and I’m here to present today’s findings.
The health insurance estimates released today come from two surveys. The Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (or CPS ASEC) asks people about their health insurance coverage at any time in the previous calendar year. The national level results presented today come from this survey. Today’s CPS ASEC health insurance estimates are based on the updated processing system. These health insurance estimates should only be compared directly to estimates based on this updated processing system.
State level estimates released today come from the American Community Survey, which asks people about their coverage at the time of the interview. Due to its larger sample size, the American Community Survey is the recommended source of health insurance statistics for smaller populations and levels of geography.
Let me begin by summarizing the main findings this year. An estimated 8.5 percent of the population, or about 27.5 million people, did not have health insurance coverage at any point in 2018. Between 2017 and 2018, the uninsured rate increased 0.5 percentage points, and the number of uninsured people increased by 1.9 million. This represents the first year-to-year increase in the uninsured rate in the CPS ASEC since 2008 to 2009. The percentage of people uninsured at the time of their interview decreased in three states and increased in eight states between 2017 and 2018. In 2018, most people (91.5 percent) had health insurance coverage at some point during the calendar year, with more people having private health insurance (67.3 percent) than public coverage (34.4 percent).
Looking at private coverage more closely, employer-based insurance was the most common subtype of coverage overall, covering 55.1 percent of the population. Ten point eight percent of people purchased their coverage directly. The updated processing system allows us for the first time to distinguish whether this coverage was through a state or federal health insurance marketplace, such as healthcare.gov. In 2018, 3.3 percent of people, or 30.8 percent of people with direct purchase insurance, obtained their coverage through the marketplace. In 2018, 34.4 percent of people had public coverage, which includes Medicare, Medicaid, and VA and CHAMPVA coverage.
Over time, changes in the rate of health insurance coverage and the distribution of coverage types may reflect economic trends, shifts in the demographic composition of the population, and policy changes that affect access to care. The percentage of people covered by any type of health insurance decreased half a percentage point between 2017 and 2018. This decrease was primarily driven by a change in public coverage. Between 2017 and 2018, the percentage of people with private coverage did not statistically change, and the percentage of people with public coverage decreased 0.4 percentage points. Among public coverage, Medicaid coverage decreased 0.7 percentage points, while Medicare coverage moved in the opposite direction, increasing by 0.4 percentage points. This increase was partly due to growth in the number of people aged 65 and over, and not a change in Medicare coverage for adults in this age range.
Age is strongly associated with the likelihood that a person has health insurance. In 2018, adults aged 65 and over had the lowest uninsured rate (0.9 percent), followed by children under the age of 19 (5.5 percent), and adults aged 19 to 64 (11.7 percent). Between 2017 and 2018, the uninsured rate increased for adults aged 35 to 44 and 45 to 64, as well as for children aged 0 to 18. Indeed, in 2018, 5.5 percent of children under the age of 19 did not have health insurance coverage, a 0.6 percentage point increase from 2017. For many selected characteristics, the percentage of children without health insurance coverage was significantly higher in 2018 than in 2017. However, the change was not uniform across groups. For example, the uninsured rate did not change for children in families with income of less than 400 percent of poverty; however, it increased 0.7 percentage points for children living in families at or above 400 percent of poverty. In both years, the rate of uninsured declined as the income-to-poverty ratio increased.
The updated processing system allows us to report more detailed information than previously available, including sub-annual or within-year health insurance coverage. Among the 296.2 million people covered at any point during 2018, most (96.4 percent) had health insurance coverage for all 12 months, while 3.6 percent had coverage for one to 11 months. That is, most people with coverage during 2018 had coverage throughout the entire calendar year. Most people with private coverage and with public coverage also had their coverage for all of 2018. The larger sample size of the American Community Survey allows us to observe the uninsured rate, as well as changes in the uninsured rate, at the state level.
This map shows the uninsured rate by state in 2018. Lighter colors represent lower uninsured rates, and darker colors represent higher uninsured rates. Six states and the District of Columbia are in the lightest shade of blue, with less than five percent of people uninsured at the time of interview. Six states in the darkest shade have an uninsured rate of 12 percent or higher. This map presents the change in uninsured rates between 2017 and 2018. The percentage of people without health insurance coverage decreased in three states and increased in eight states. Statistically significant decreases ranged from 0.3 to 1.8 percentage points, and all increases were one percentage point or less.
More information is available in our reports online. We have a number of tables and figures on our website, in addition to an America Counts story that looks at changes in coverage for children, and a Research Matters blog that highlights a new measure of health insurance coverage: coverage at the time of interview, which we include in our report for the first time this year. Additional data products based on the American Community Survey will be available on September 26th.
Licenses and Attributions for Transcript for Figure 6.3, 2019 Income, Poverty and Health Insurance – Health Insurance Presentation
Transcript for “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance – Health Insurance Presentation” by U.S. Census Bureau is included under fair use.
Transcript for Figure 8.2, Where Does the Nuclear Family Come From?
[Danielle Bainbridge, host]: We’re all pretty familiar with the image of the American nuclear family with two parents, a couple of kids, and a loyal canine companion, but when did we start thinking of the nuclear family as the most natural one?
With Thanksgiving coming up, we thought it would be fun to talk about family. It’s safe to say that most of us know more than a few families that don’t fit into the typical nuclear family mold. Yet despite this diversity, if asked to describe a prototype of the American family, a lot of us will still recall images more reminiscent of Leave It to Beaver than anything we’ve witnessed in real life. But if all of us can imagine or know families of all shapes, sizes, and styles, then why does the expression “nuclear families” still get lobbied around to represent some sort of idealized unit?
Before we dive into the incongruous history of the family structure with the same name as the center of an atom, we should ask ourselves what is the history of family structures before the idea of the nuclear family became the shorthand for normal?
This answer varies based on time period, region, and culture. Kinship, or the recognition of relationships between people within the same community or biological family, plays a huge role in how we define our family structure. Yes, everyone all over the world has a biological ancestry, but who and what we call our familiar relations is not that cut and dry.
In the Iroquois system, your father’s brothers were also your father, and your mother’s sisters were also your mother. In the Kaw nation kinship system, your mother’s brother’s daughter, who we would call your cousin, is also called your mother. In the matrilineal Maggio culture in northern China, women freely chose their partners, and who your biological father is, is not considered very important at all. Frequently, your biological father wouldn’t even live with you, and your mother’s brothers often fill in the role of the father figure. Plus, all of this is frequently even more complicated by language barriers. So if you think your family structure is weird, trust me, it’s not.
In terms of European history from the 1500s until the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, it was common for peasant families in northern and central Europe to live in two-generational households, consisting of the parents as the older generation in charge of the family and the children as the second generation.
That was also because kids were a big part of the economic structure of the household, working with their parents to sustain the family’s livelihood. At any given point in time, only less than 10% of these peasant families lived intergenerationally, in part because a lot of the grandparents didn’t live long enough to make this a reality. By the end of the Middle Ages, most families in those regions were in the traditional nuclear format, owing in part to the influence of the Christian Church, which sanctioned monogamy. By contrast, in the same periods in eastern and southern Europe, intergenerational living was much more common, with several generations of the family all living within the same household.
Not everyone thought the nuclear family was ideal. In the 19th century, researchers who were studying family structures theorized that nuclear families they observed in manufacturing regions of Western Europe and in England might not be the best, since once children left to form their own families, it left elder parents alone. There are also other structures that were practiced, such as conjugal families, or families that were connected through marriage, and consanguineous families that are connected by their common bloodline.
Another big part of how families were defined centered on the question of marriage. Although there are more contemporary notions that marriage is about love, fidelity, building a life together, and making huge centerpieces out of mason jars, that wasn’t always the case. Marriage is an ancient custom dating back thousands of years, and evidence shows that marriage customs have varied as widely as family structures. According to Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History, a lot of those marriages were more about family connections than love. What marriage had in common was that it really wasn’t about the relationship between the man and the woman; it was a way of getting in-laws, making alliances, and expanding the family labor force. How romantic.
And marriage includes a laundry list of options, like arranged marriages, where families choose their children’s spouse, or polygamy, where there are multiple marriages within one defined group. That includes both polygyny, or one man with multiple wives, and polyandry, or one woman with multiple husbands. Although polygyny is the more commonly known practice, accounts of polyandry exist in approximately 53 societies around the world, such as Tibet.
Although religious marriages have a long history, as centuries have passed, the state has played a larger and larger role in regulating marriage practices, so a marriage can have a religious ceremony, a civil ceremony, or a combination of both. It wasn’t until the last 250 years or so that the idea that marriages should be love matches started gaining traction.
We’ve established that families have lots of different shapes, sizes, and customs. So that brings us to our next question: when did the nuclear family become shorthand for the American household?
The use of the specific phrase “nuclear family” in English can be dated back to the 1920s, but as the evidence shows, the concept or form of the nuclear family wasn’t exactly new. But in the 1950s U.S., the Cold War was accompanied by an economic boom, the growth of suburban developments on the outskirts of major cities, and a growth in the middle class and a population surge, all of which encouraged the nuclear family.
But it wasn’t inherently a natural development. PSAs and how-to videos broadcast across the country were specifically designed to teach families how to behave appropriately and what to do if they were going to achieve this stylized ideal. But these realities were marked heavily by divisions of class and race, as the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was occurring simultaneously. So even though in the 1960s some historians and sociologists interested in family structures were concluding that nuclear families were the only widely spread version of the family, the contemporary reality for many American families differed greatly from the ones presented in popular media.
If even the Brady Bunch was blended, then that leads us to asking our final question: is the nuclear family really the most popular form in the U.S.? And if not, what kind of families are out there?
Let’s look at the data. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2012, 66% of households were family households, down from 81% in 1970. In those same years, married couples with children under 18 dropped from 40% to 20%. Black and Latino children were more likely to live in single-parent households, and households with only one person jumped from 17% to 27%. So it seems that while married couples with kids still describe a substantial number of families in the U.S., that number is shifting every day.
In the last hundred years, marriages and families have continued to evolve, at least in regards to the types of unions becoming legally recognized and visible in the popular consciousness. The political and legal system of a region can determine the types of marriages recognized by law, which in turn impacts the type of families that are visible.
In 1967, the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia struck down all laws prohibiting interracial marriage in the United States. In 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges ruled that laws against same-sex marriage in the U.S. were unconstitutional. But families also exist outside of legal and state recognition, and that’s not a new phenomenon. In ancient Greece, alumni was the term for children who were fostered by another family, and there is legal precedent for adoption dating back to the Code of Hammurabi in the 18th century BC. Today, there are over a quarter of a million adoptions worldwide every year. So clearly, blood ties, marriage, and children aren’t the only ways that family can be defined.
How does it all add up? Marriages, families, and kinship groups have been going strong for thousands of years in almost every configuration that we can think of, and that includes the nuclear family. While the image of the nuclear family is often held up as the ideal and only form a family can take, whether or not that’s true seems to vary by social group and region. As we gear up for the holidays and think about passing various side dishes to members of our own family with both joy and maybe a little bit of caution, it’s important to remember whatever form, shape, or size it takes, we have the power to define what family should look like for ourselves.
So what do you think? Any funny family stories to share? Drop them below with all of your questions, and we’ll see you next week.
[Last week, we did an episode on why women give birth lying down, and Krystal Murray on Facebook had a really great question. She says, “I can’t remember the exact dates, but some doctors also started smear campaigns against midwives to try to get women to give birth in hospitals.” This is a really awesome question. There were ads running around the early and mid-20th century to encourage women to switch to hospitals. Although the content of the ads and how they represented midwives varied, some were interested in disparaging midwives as unsafe, while others I’ve seen were health department videos focused on standardizing midwifery as a practice since they provided vital services to women who were far away from hospitals. I’ll drop some of these examples and links in the works cited since time period is really important to the answer for this question on how midwives are represented in popular media. Thanks for watching and thanks for the great question.]
Licenses and Attributions for Transcript for Figure 8.2, Where Does the Nuclear Family Come From?
Transcript for “Where does the Nuclear Family Come From?” by PBS Origins is included under fair use.
Transcript for Figure 8.6, Three-Minute Legal Talks: United States Supreme Court case Brackeen v. Haaland
[Music.]
[Stacey Lara]: My name is Stacey Lara and I’m an assistant teaching professor at the University of Washington School of Law.
[Interviewer]: Can you give a brief overview of the Indian Child Welfare Act?
[Stacey Lara]: The Indian Child Welfare Act was passed in 1978 in response to the really egregious and tragic practice of unnecessary removal of Indian children from their families and their communities. The Indian Child Welfare Act was put in place to address this reality and in its passage create certain protections for Indian children to remain in their homes.
These include notice, so tribes getting notice when one of their children have been removed from their family’s home. It sets higher standards for service provisions. So, child welfare agencies or someone looking to a third party looking to adopt a child needs to make active efforts to keep the family intact before removal and to try and return that child home as soon as possible. It also creates higher standards of proof and creates a remedy in that it allows for the invalidation of a termination of parental rights if the law is not complied with.
[Interviewer]: What are the issues concerning Brackeen v. Haaland?
[Stacey Lara]: So, this case presents three primary issues to the Supreme Court. The first is whether ICWA unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of race by requiring state proceedings to give preference in its placement of Indian children with that child’s extended family, other members of the tribe or Indian families rather than non-Indian adoptive parents.
The second is whether ICWA in its implementing regulations constitutionally commandeers states or otherwise exceed Congress’s authority.
And then the third is whether the authority that ICWA confers upon individual Indian tribes violates the Nondelegation Doctrine.
[Interviewer]: What are the arguments for both sides of the case?
[Stacey Lara]: Well, under the equal protection argument it involves placement preferences that are a component of ICWA. The Brackeen argument is that because ICWA applies to Indian children, it’s a race-based classification. Many states are taking the position that ICWA is not about race. It doesn’t apply because it’s not based on racial identification. Tribal membership or enrollment is determined by the tribes themselves and it is a political designation, and that was established under Morton v. Mancari.
On anticommandeering, that doctrine, the Brackeen argument is that ICWA requires state agencies to spend money and resources and in doing that it commandeers state governments, which would be a violation of anticommandeering. The response is that ICWA sets minimum legal burdens and that if Congress has the power to pass a law, it also has the power to require state judges to comply with and enforce it.
And then with respect to the Nondelegation Doctrine, the Brackeen position is that Congress improperly delegates placement preferences to tribes, this response being that tribes are not administrative agencies. They’re not private persons. They’re separate sovereigns that have a sovereign-to-sovereign relationship with the United States government, and therefore that the delegation doctrine doesn’t apply.
[Interviewer]: Can you explain what the decision might mean for federal Indian law and tribal sovereignty?
[Stacey Lara]: One commentator has said that this case could have revolutionary and catastrophic consequences. And I absolutely agree with that. There are hundreds of treaties that the federal government has made with Indian nations that are in effect. And whether or not these can stand based on whether or not this law is considered unconstitutional, really remains to be seen. If Congress can’t distinguish between tribal members and nonmembers, that has the real potential to impact future litigation involving native tribes. It could impact gaming revenue, gaming rights, mineral rights, tribal recognition – really undermining native sovereignty, which has been in place since the very first days of this country.
Licenses and Attributions for Transcript for Figure 8.6, Three-Minute Legal Talks: United States Supreme Court case Brackeen v. Haaland
Transcript for “Three-Minute Legal Talks: United States Supreme Court case Brackeen v. Haaland” by UW School of Law is included under fair use.
Transcript for Figure 9.3, Epistemic injustice in healthcare
[Professor Havi Carel, Professor of Philosophy, University of Bristol (UK)]: Maybe we can’t cure people or entirely remove symptoms, but we do have the ability to give people the sense that they’re being listened to and that their opinions and needs are being taken seriously.
I’m Havi Carel. I’m the principal investigator on a discovery award called EPIC which is epistemic injustice in healthcare.
Epistemic injustice. It’s a philosophical concept developed in order to capture the way in which we can be discriminated against when our credibility is unfairly reduced when we speak. Because you are from this ethnic group, or because you are a woman, or because of how you dress or because of your socioeconomic status. So it’s an injustice done to somebody in their capacity as a speaker, as a knower. And of course, It’s particularly significant within healthcare because these contributions from patients are sometimes overlooked or ignored or not acted upon. And this, of course, could have dire consequences for the quality of the clinical care that they receive. The EPIC team includes researchers from philosophy, psychiatry, psychology, law, history, and qualitative health research. The project aims to identify, describe, document, analyze and ultimately ameliorate the phenomenon of epistemic injustice in healthcare.
So EPIC will address four existing problems in the field.
The first is, it’s conceptually under-described and what EPIC will do is fill theoretical gaps in our understanding of epistemic injustice in healthcare.
Second, it’s empirically untested, and this will be the first large scale project to use six case studies to describe and understand and document epistemic injustice in real healthcare domains.
The third is that EPIC will develop some amelioration and ways to address and reduce the risk of epistemic injustice in healthcare.
And finally, EPIC will try and bring the concept of epistemic injustice into contact with the broader healthcare discourse. For me, the most important outcome of the project would be to develop concrete and applicable tools for both health professionals and patients to reduce epistemic injustice within healthcare.
Licenses and Attributions for Transcript for Figure 9.3, Epistemic injustice in healthcare
Transcript for “Epistemic injustice in healthcare | Wellcome” by Wellcome is included under fair use.
Transcript for Figure 9.6, Women of Color Research Network Discusses: The Importance of Mentoring
[Donna Ginther, PhD, Director of the Center for Science Technology & Economic Policy at the University of Kansas]: I think mentoring lets people know that they’re not alone, that there are other people like them having the same experiences. It lets them know how to go through and manage their career.
Careers aren’t always linear. My career zigged and zagged and then I finally ended up where I am at now, and I think that people need to be able to take control of their career and make it work for them. And they’re more likely to stay in a research career if they can tailor it to meet their needs.
[Hannah Valantine, MD, Senior Associate Dean at Stanford School of Medicine]: There’s a pillar of mentoring but I want to call it sponsorship because mentoring without the sponsorship, which is actually advocating for the individual and really getting them launched into, you know, awards helping – getting them into positions that they can be invited to write opinion pieces and papers and getting them into leadership positions, that’s actual sponsorship as opposed to mentorship and I think that is critical.
[Belinda Seto, PhD, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering]: Mentoring is the most gratifying part of my job as a deputy director of this institute. Don’t be deterred or discouraged that these are so-called bigshots in their field, including the Nobel Laureates.
In my own career I’ve found out that those who are most successful in science, in their professions, are also, likewise, the most generous.
[Ginther]: I think it’s really important to have somebody who’s been there, done that and can say, give you a reality check about what you’re doing, if it makes sense or not.
So I think that’s why I keep always coming back to mentoring and its role and sort of having a career that you own that’s not the linear “Oh, I went to graduate school and then made it to dean.” You’ve got to make it your own, you’ve got to own it because nobody is going to tell you what you’re doing is great. People don’t congratulate you on being successful. What happens is, you have to find the rewards in your work.
[Shirley Malcom, PhD, Head of Education and Human Resources at the American Association for the Advancement of Science]: I tell people, I had to become something I had never seen. What right did I have to believe that I could ever move into the sciences, or to be able to achieve at any level, or to obtain a Ph.D, or to, or to, or to….
It’s like because they’re like each step moving from one place to another place to another place. Everywhere along that pathway, in a way you need affirmation. You need support and help, but you also need affirmation that you’re good enough. You are, in a way, given permission to enter this space and if you’re not given that permission it’s harder to take that, to use your own agency in order to take that space.
[Valantine]: My overarching goal is that we can, very quickly, get to 50 percent of women in leadership positions, meaning at full professor level, and that’s what we need to have in order to change this situation. So I’m calling it 50-50 by 2020 as my big goal, stretch goal, for the next 7 years.
Licenses and Attributions for Transcript for Figure 9.6, Women of Color Research Network Discusses: The Importance of Mentoring
Transcript for “Women of Color Research Network Discusses: The Importance of Mentoring” by NIBIB gov is included under fair use.
