Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Grigoris Argeros, Professor of Sociology, Eastern Michigan University

Oakland County, home to nearly 1.3 million residents, ranks among Michigan’s wealthiest counties.

But that description does not tell the whole story.

Since 2020, Oakland County’s population and income have grown steadily. Over the same period, Wayne County’s population declined, and Macomb County experienced slower growth.

Oakland County also has higher incomes overall. Median household income is about US$97,760 in Oakland County, compared with $77,837 in Macomb County and $60,539 in Wayne County.

Some of Oakland’s communities, such as Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills, rank among the most affluent in the tri-county Detroit metro region, with rapidly increasing home prices. Homes in these communities can sell for well over $1 million. Residents here have generally better health outcomes and have remained at the top of the socioeconomic ladder over time. The median household income is $153,510 in Birmingham and $189,942 in Bloomfield Hills.

However, median household incomes can be misleading and mask important differences within the county. Prosperity is not evenly shared, a sign of long-standing economic inequality.

My sociology research focuses on neighborhood and socioeconomic change in American cities. To see where and how divides are emerging, it is necessary to look beyond overall averages and focus on communities within individual counties. Let’s see what we find when we look deeper into the communities in Oakland County.

Measuring inequality

To do that analysis, I used an index of neighborhood socioeconomic status, developed by geographer Joe Darden and political scientist Sameh Kamel. Darden is known for his research on residential segregation and neighborhood inequality in the Detroit region.

Urban researchers and public health scholars use this index to compare neighborhood conditions within and across metropolitan regions and to examine how inequality is distributed.

The index uses census data to combine measures of income, education, housing and employment into a single score ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate higher socioeconomic position. Like any composite index, it summarizes complex social conditions into a single measure and cannot capture every difference between communities.

Oakland County’s wealth isn’t evenly shared

On this index, Oakland County’s communities are spread across the full socioeconomic range rather than clustering entirely at the top.

In 2023 about 61% fell into the highest socioeconomic tier. The rest were divided between the middle and lowest tiers.

Communities such as Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, Troy and Rochester Hills remain relatively well-off, with some of the highest scores on the county’s socioeconomic index.

Cities such as Pontiac, along with suburbs such as Oak Park, Hazel Park and Madison Heights, fall in the county’s lowest socioeconomic tier with some of the lowest scores on the index.

Pockets of socioeconomic change

About 80% of communities in Oakland county remained in the same tier between 2010 and 2023.

Socioeconomic stability was strongest at the top: 9 in 10 high-tier communities stayed there.

But the rest of the county tells a different story.

Several communities outside the top tier changed position over time. Wixom and Keego Harbor moved up from the lowest tier into the middle, while Oxford and Rose townships rose from the middle tier into the highest.

Addison, Brandon and White Lake townships shifted from the highest tier into the middle, while Holly township moved from the middle tier into the lowest.

Wealth gaps point to growing disadvantage

These differences point to a growing socioeconomic divide within one of Michigan’s wealthiest counties, similar to trends in other parts of the U.S.

Understanding these divides is key to making sense of the region’s broader challenges, from rising housing costs to differences in job opportunities across metropolitan Detroit.

Communities with a low socioeconomic score have higher poverty and unemployment rates, lower median household income and fewer residents with a college degree or higher. Higher-tier communities show the opposite pattern, with lower poverty and unemployment, higher incomes, higher educational attainment and much higher home values.

The middle tier includes communities such as Ferndale, Auburn Hills, Waterford Township, South Lyon and Wixom. As a group, middle-tier communities resemble the county’s wealthiest areas on some indicators – such as unemployment and homeownership. On others, especially poverty, they remain closer to lower-income places.

A key distinction, however, is the continuing gap between the middle and the top. Middle-tier communities have lower incomes, fewer college graduates and far lower home values than higher-tier communities. The typical home in a middle-tier place is worth about $259,000, compared with more than $405,000 in the highest tier. The gap in median home values leads to significant differences in family wealth, which in turn affects retirement savings, the ability to pay for college and the financial cushion available during economic downturns.

These differences suggest that Oakland County’s stratification is not limited to a divide between struggling areas and wealthy ones. Instead, even its middle-tier communities lag behind the county’s most affluent places, especially when it comes to education and wealth. The divide, therefore, runs not only between the bottom and the top but also between the middle and the most advantaged communities.

How does Oakland compare with nearby counties?

In Oakland County, movement was evenly split, with 10% of communities moving up and 10% moving down, suggesting that gains and losses occurred at roughly the same rate.

In Macomb County, 13% of communities moved up, while 4% moved down. Wayne County showed the least change overall, with about 91% of communities remaining in the same tier between 2010 and 2023. This may be due to decades of economic hardship that have made it more unlikely for communities there to move in either direction.

Oakland County remains one of Michigan’s wealthiest counties. But its communities are not all moving in the same direction. Understanding these differences will be important as the region plans for the future.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Signs of economic instability emerge in Oakland County, one of Michigan’s wealthiest – https://theconversation.com/signs-of-economic-instability-emerge-in-oakland-county-one-of-michigans-wealthiest-274506

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Valerie M. Fridland, Professor of Linguistics, University of Nevada, Reno

As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuously, t’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

The rise of the grammar sticklers

Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

In fact, evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

Embrace the change

Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

Valerie M. Fridland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes – https://theconversation.com/despite-all-the-likes-literallys-and-dropped-gs-english-isnt-decaying-before-our-eyes-279955

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Phil Starks, Associate Professor of Biology, Tufts University

The first time the placebo effect really got under my skin was when I read that roughly one-third of people with irritable bowel syndrome improve on placebo treatments alone. Usually this statistic is presented as a fascinating quirk of medicine. My reaction was anger.

Humanity possesses an extremely effective treatment, with essentially zero side effects – and patients need someone else’s permission to use it.

The placebo effect refers to the improvements in symptoms that patients experience after they’re given an inert treatment like a sugar pill. Driven by expectation, context and social cues rather than pharmacology, the placebo effect is often dismissed as all in the mind. But decades of research have shown it is anything but imaginary.

Placebo treatments can trigger measurable changes in the brain, immune system and hormone function. In studies on pain, placebos cause the brain to release endorphins, the body’s natural opioids. In Parkinson’s disease, placebo injections increase dopamine activity in the brain. The placebo effect isn’t magic. It’s biology.

Having spent nearly a quarter-century teaching evolutionary medicine, I’ve come to see placebos not as curiosities of clinical trials but as windows into how human biology responds to social signals. And it’s that relationship that is exactly what makes the placebo effect unsettling.

Medicine works, even when it isn’t medicine

The placebo effect is so reliable that researchers must account for it in nearly every clinical trial.

When testing a new drug, scientists compare its effects to what patients experience on a placebo treatment like sugar pills, saline injections or sham surgery. If the drug doesn’t outperform the placebo, it rarely reaches the public. Placebo responses are common and powerful enough to rival active treatments.

Even surgery isn’t immune to the placebo effect. In several well-documented studies of knee procedures, patients who received sham operations – incisions without the full surgical repair – improved almost as much as those who received the real procedure.

Clearly something real is happening inside the body. But the strangest part of the placebo effect is not that it works. It’s what makes it work.

The prescription of belief

Placebo treatments tend to be more effective when delivered by credible authorities. Pills work better when prescribed by doctors wearing white coats. Expensive pills outperform cheap ones. Injections produce stronger responses than tablets.

Some researchers have even removed the deception from placebo experiments entirely. In open-label placebo studies, patients are directly told they are receiving a placebo; and yet many still report significant improvement.

But look more closely at how these studies are run. Patients are not simply handed a sugar pill and sent home. They receive an explanation from a clinician, in a medical setting, within a structured ritual of care: a context that may be doing much of the biological work.

Even when the deception disappears, the social scaffolding remains. The permission to heal is still being granted by someone else.

The placebo effect extends beyond the patient

The placebo effect is often framed as something happening inside an individual. But it does not operate in isolation.

Consider what happens in veterinary medicine. Dogs and cats cannot believe a treatment they’re given will work; they have no concept of receiving medication. Yet when owners and vets believe an animal is being treated, they consistently report improvements in pain and mobility that medical tests do not confirm.

In one study of dogs with osteoarthritis, owners reported improvement roughly 57% of the time for animals receiving only a placebo.

The animals themselves may not have improved. But the humans caring for them perceived they had. The healing signal, it turns out, travels through the humans in the room.

When healing makes things worse

There have been times when going to the doctor made you less likely to survive. In the 19th century, mainstream medicine was built on bloodletting, purging and doses of mercury and arsenic – treatments that killed as often as they cured.

Homeopathy emerged in the late 18th century precisely in this context. Its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, was a physician horrified by the harm the conventional medicine of his time was causing. His highly diluted versions of contemporary remedies did nothing pharmacologically. But they also did not kill people, which put them decisively ahead of the competition.

Homeopathic patients not only survived but also reported dramatic recoveries from chronic ailments and acute infections alike. During the cholera epidemics of the mid-1800s, patients at homeopathic hospitals had lower death rates than those receiving standard care. Why was that?

The standard cholera treatment of the era was aggressive and exhausting; for a disease that already caused massive fluid loss, doctors often prescribed further bloodletting, along with toxic purgatives such as calomel – a form of mercury – to “flush” the system. In contrast, homeopathic care involved extreme dilutions of substances in water or alcohol, effectively providing hydration and a calm, structured environment without the physiological assault.

Death rates were lower not because homeopathy worked but because the placebo effect – combined with not poisoning patients – was more effective than the medicine of the day.

Healing is not free

The body needs resources to heal from injury and disease. Activating systems such as immune responses, tissue repair and inflammation at the wrong time can be dangerous.

A full-scale immune response is metabolically expensive, with fever increasing metabolic rate by roughly 10% per degree Celsius rise in body temperature. Triggered at the wrong time, this can deplete critical energy reserves needed for immediate survival, such as escaping a predator. Furthermore, misplaced or overzealous inflammation causes collateral damage to healthy tissues, potentially leading to chronic dysfunction.

Some researchers have proposed that placebo responses reflect a kind of biological health governor: a system that regulates when the body invests heavily in recovery. Cues from trusted individuals may be exactly the signal the body waits for before committing resources to recovery. A caregiver’s reassurance, a physician’s authority and the rituals of medicine may tell the body that conditions are finally stable enough to devote energy to healing.

If that interpretation is correct, the placebo effect is not a trick of the mind. It is an ancient biological system responding to social information.

Body under stress

The placebo effect resembles another system people struggle with today: the stress response.

Stress evolved to keep you alive in the face of acute danger – predators, famine, immediate physical threat. These days, this useful piece of biological engineering might fire when someone hasn’t replied to your email. The system that once saved people’s lives now makes many miserable over things that would have been unimaginable to their ancestors.

You can talk back to the stress response, consciously reappraising the threat – in other words, reframing a looming deadline not as a catastrophe but as a manageable challenge – to help quiet it. But notice what you cannot do: You cannot simply decide to activate your placebo response. You cannot will yourself to release pain-relieving endorphins by believing hard enough in a sugar pill. For that, you still need the ritual, the white coat, the authority figure. You need someone else.

The stress response, misfiring as it is, remains yours. The placebo response has been outsourced: not because it wasn’t always social, but because even now, people still can’t seem to access it on their own.

The uncomfortable implication

The placebo effect is not a trick of the mind. It is a feature of human biology that people have largely surrendered to whoever performs authority most convincingly.

If belief can activate biological healing pathways, belief can also be manipulated. Charismatic figures, elaborate medical rituals and expensive treatments may produce real improvement in symptoms even when the underlying treatment is physiologically inert. That is how wellness culture works. It leverages the same social scaffolding of care to trigger the body’s internal pharmacy, regardless of whether the treatment itself does anything.

The placebo effect is often celebrated as proof that the mind can heal the body. But I believe that may not be its most interesting lesson. It also reveals that human physiology evolved to take its cues from other people. Your brain, immune system and pain response are not isolated machines. They are deeply intertwined with social signals, expectations and trust.

In a world filled with doctors, advertisements, wellness influencers and elaborate medical rituals, that insight is both fascinating and profoundly maddening. People are walking around with one of the most powerful healing systems ever documented locked inside them, and they can reliably access it only when someone in a position of authority gives them permission.

Phil Starks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Placebo effect can work as well as real medicine – but your body may need permission to use it – https://theconversation.com/placebo-effect-can-work-as-well-as-real-medicine-but-your-body-may-need-permission-to-use-it-279923

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Katie E. Corcoran, Professor of Sociology, West Virginia University

Most U.S. adults who attend religious services attend multiple congregations, at least occasionally, according to our new research.

As sociologists who research congregational life in the United States, we fielded a nationally representative survey in 2023. We asked over 2,000 adults across many religious affiliations, and those with no religion, a variety of questions about their religious beliefs and activities.

Our analysis, which was published in the Review of Religious Research, found that roughly 12% of all adults who attend services go to multiple congregations “regularly” and 45% attend multiple congregations “occasionally.” Of those who attend multiple congregations, 73% attend two congregations and 27% attend three or more, at least occasionally.

Adults who attend multiple congregations are more likely to be politically liberal, whereas political conservatives are more likely to always attend one congregation. We also found that evangelical Protestants are less likely to attend multiple places of worship than Catholics. About 17% of those attending a single place of worship identified as evangelical Protestant, versus only 10% of people who attended more than one.

Catholics, on the other hand, are more likely to attend multiple congregations. Unsurprisingly, so are people who identify with multiple religious traditions.

Why attend multiple places of worship? Of those who do, 24% said it’s to experience a “different style of service,” and another 24% said “I have friends that attend.” Another common reason was to attend special events at another congregation.

Americans who attend multiple congregations generally give less time and money to each congregation they attend. Cumulatively, however – across all the congregations they attend – they donate and volunteer at similar levels to people who always attend the same house of worship.

Why it matters

Historians and social scientists sometimes refer to religion in the U.S. as a “marketplace” in which different places of worship compete for members. That theory assumes that when people begin attending a new place of worship, they stop attending their old one – that their loyalties are exclusive.

Instead, our research shows that many individuals across regions and religions take a more flexible approach. They might attend one place because they appreciate its worship style, but they also attend another to hang out with a particular friend group.

For researchers, this complicates how we measure and track changes in American religion. Many surveys, for example, ask people only a single question about how often they attend religious services. How do people who attend multiple congregations respond? Do they only report how often they attend their most frequent place of worship, try to add up across the different congregations they attend, or something else?

If surveys are not asking about multiple attendance, then they are likely missing pieces of the puzzle.

What’s next

Our survey results suggest that researchers need to move away from thinking about congregational attendance as exclusive.

While our survey focused on the characteristics and behaviors of individuals, we would like to see future surveys examine what types of congregations are more likely to have exclusive versus nonexclusive attenders. Similarly, our research did not distinguish between in-person versus virtual service attendance, which could provide additional insights into why people attend multiple congregations.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Katie E. Corcoran receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This article was made possible through the support of Grant 62630 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

Christopher P. Scheitle receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation. This article was made possible through the support of Grant 62630 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

– ref. Attending multiple places of worship is the norm for many Americans – https://theconversation.com/attending-multiple-places-of-worship-is-the-norm-for-many-americans-277484

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John Parker, Senior Scientist in Community Ecology, Smithsonian Institution

Around the world, people plan to plant more than 1 trillion trees this decade in an ambitious effort to slow climate change and reduce biodiversity loss. But if the past is prologue, many of those planted trees won’t survive. And if they do, they could end up as biological deserts that lack the richness and resilience of healthy forests.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

The United Nations declared 2021-2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration to encourage efforts to repair degraded ecosystems. Tree planting has become a centerpiece of that effort, championed by initiatives such as the Bonn Challenge and the Trillion Trees Campaign.

However, many tree-planting commitments have a critical flaw: They rely too heavily on monoculture plantations – vast areas planted with just a single tree species.

Monoculture plantations are generally one-way tickets to producing wood. But these high-yield plantations are high risk and can be surprisingly fragile. When drought, pests, or forest fires strike, entire monoculture plantations can fail at once. In one example, nearly 90% of 11 million saplings planted in Turkey died within three months due to drought and lack of maintenance.

Forests are more than just timber factories. They regulate water, store carbon, provide habitat for wildlife, cool the landscapes around them and even provide human health benefits.

Rather than gambling on a single species and hoping for the best, science now points to a smarter path that captures both ecological and economic benefits while minimizing risk: mixed-species plantings that mirror the biodiversity of a natural forest, ultimately creating forests that grow faster and are more resilient in the face of constant threats.

We are community and landscape ecologists at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Since 2013, we and our colleagues have been rigorously testing this idea in a large, ecosystem-scale experiment called BiodiversiTREE. The verdict is striking: Trees in mixed forests don’t just survive – they outgrow their monoculture counterparts and support dramatically more biodiversity.

Trees with diverse neighbors grow larger

Thirteen years ago, we teamed up with volunteers to plant nearly 18,000 tree seedlings on 60 acres of fallow fields on the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center campus near the Chesapeake Bay.

We didn’t plant just a single species. We planted 16 different native species from all walks of tree-life. Some species were fast-growing timber species, some were mid-story species, and some were slow-growing species that might not reach full size for a century or more.

Some plots we planted with just a single species – homogenous rows of the same species over and over again. But others were planted with random allotments of four and 12 species, reflecting the middle and upper ends of tree diversity in similar-sized areas of our local forests.

We asked a simple question: What would happen if we tried to mirror nature and plant a mixture of species instead of a monoculture?

The differences over a decade later are striking.

The monoculture plots – those that survived – resemble traditional plantation forestry that historically has dominated rural lands in the Southeast and Pacific Northwest in the U.S. They contain rows of tall, narrow trees with sparse canopies and little life below.

The mixed-species plots, by contrast, are layered, complex and dynamic, with foliage filling the canopy and a diversity of plants and animals thriving underneath.

These visual contrasts reflect real ecological gains. Trees grown in mixtures, including important timber species like poplar and red oak, are up to 80% larger than the same species when grown alone. Mixed plots supported fewer leaf pathogens, more abundant caterpillar communities that provide food for birds, and increased phytochemical diversity in their leaves. We hypothesize that these leaf chemicals, some of which deter animals from eating them, reduced browsing damage from hungry deer, ultimately leading to higher tree growth in the mixed plots.

Plots with several tree species also had much fuller, denser leaf canopies, leading to cooler, shadier conditions that help understory plants flourish and support up to 50% more insects, spiders and birds.

This pattern isn’t unique to our site. The BiodiversiTREE project is part of TreeDivNet, a global network of large-scale experiments spanning more than 1.2 million trees and hundreds of species. Across continents and climates, the results are consistent: Forests with a mix of species tend to grow larger, store more carbon and better withstand stress from drought, pests and disease.

So why are monocultures still common?

Despite decades of evidence, mixed-species plantings remain relatively rare in practice. Most commercial forestry operations still rely on monocultures, and these plantations are counted toward international planting campaigns aimed at slowing climate change and reversing biodiversity loss.

The reasons are generally practical: Mixed plantings can be more complex to design, more expensive to establish and harder to manage. Crucially, until recently, there has been limited evidence that they can match or exceed the economic returns of conventional plantations.

A new experiment at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center called “Functional Forests” aims to bridge some of the gaps between science and practice. We’re developing intentionally designed combinations of trees to test whether specific mixtures of species can contribute ecological benefits while also providing timber and other services that humans need to support a thriving, sustainable economy.

Each of the 20 tree species in the Functional Forests project was chosen to provide one or more benefits, including timber, wildlife habitat, food for people, resistance to deer and climate resilience. But no single species provides all of these benefits.

Some of the nearly 200 plots will contain a single species, while others include carefully selected combinations of five species assembled based on the functions they provide. Some plots are protected from deer browsing, while others are left exposed.

By comparing these approaches, we can test how different planting strategies perform across a range of goals, from timber production to food production and from biodiversity to climate resilience.

Landowners and communities have different priorities, whether that’s producing wood, supporting wildlife or creating forests that can withstand a changing climate. The idea behind Functional Forests is to design plantings that can deliver these multiple benefits all at once, rather than optimizing for just one, essentially leveraging the positive effects of biodiversity to achieve real-world goals.

Planting 1 trillion trees wisely

The stakes are high. Restoration has become a major global investment, with hundreds of billions of dollars already being spent annually. Getting it wrong means wasted resources and missed opportunities to address some of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time.

If the world is going to plant a trillion trees, we believe it needs to do more than just put seedlings in the ground. It needs to rethink what a forest should be.

The goal isn’t just to grow trees. It’s to grow forests that last.

John Parker receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the United States Department of Agriculture. He is affiliated with TreeDivNet, a global network of tree diversity experiments.

Justin Nowakowski receives funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Defense, and through Maryland Environmental Service.

– ref. Don’t just plant trees, plant forests to restore biodiversity for the future – https://theconversation.com/dont-just-plant-trees-plant-forests-to-restore-biodiversity-for-the-future-275803

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John N. Trey Rogers, Professor of Turfgrass Research, Michigan State University

With 104 matches in 16 stadiums across Canada, the United States and Mexico, the 2026 FIFA World Cup will be soccer’s biggest event ever.

It’s our job as turfgrass researchers hired by FIFA, the game’s governing body, to make sure those pitches feel the same for players and that the grass thrives.

That’s not so simple. In fact, it seemed like an impossible challenge at first.

Picking the right turf

The scale of this job was unprecedented: three distinct climatic zones, over 3,100 miles between the farthest stadiums, and venues ranging from stadiums open to the heat of Mexico City and Miami to enclosed NFL stadiums in Dallas and Atlanta, to the cooler climates of Boston and Toronto.

Despite the unique situations of each stadium, FIFA has a long list of rules for how the fields must be built. The grass has to be real but reinforced so it can handle a lot of games and ceremonies. Each field needs an automatic irrigation system, good drainage, built-in vacuum and vents to keep the grass and soil aerated, and artificial grow lights to keep the grass healthy.

Each host city is responsible for figuring out how to meet these requirements.

Right now, eight of the 2026 host stadiums normally use artificial turf – how will they temporarily switch to real grass for the World Cup?

Even trickier, five of the stadiums have domes, which means the grass gets less sunlight. How can they keep the grass alive for eight weeks?

How can we make sure that a player competing in Philadelphia has the same on‑field experience as a player competing in Guadalajara or Seattle?

Our team at the University of Tennessee and Michigan State University has spent the past five years researching these questions to provide guidance to the host cities. Here, we’ll explore some of the most important questions we faced: which grass to grow, how it’s grown, how we plan to make it even stronger, and how to move it safely to each stadium.

Growing the grass

Typically, sod is grown on native soil. When harvested, the roots are cut, which shocks the plant and can delay root reestablishment for several weeks.

That wouldn’t work for the World Cup because games may take place within just 10 days of installation. If the roots can’t become established fast enough, the grass will be weaker and more prone to damage.

To address this, we decided to use sod grown on plastic with sand as a base.

Think of it like growing grass in a plastic tray, but on a much larger scale. When the roots reach the plastic, they spread sideways and intertwine, forming a dense rooting system. Because the roots stay intact during harvest, the sod experiences minimal stress and can be ready to play almost immediately after installation.

Sod for sports fields is typically grown in a base of sand to provide quick drainage and prevent the grass from getting compacted as the roots become established.

The problem is that growing grass in 2 inches of sand on a plastic sheet comes with risks. Because of the plastic, a single heavy rainfall while the grass is becoming established can wash the exposed sand away.

For warm‑season sod farmers – those that grow grass that thrives in high temperatures – sand washing away is less of a concern because the Bermudagrass they grow establishes quickly. On the other hand, cool‑season sod farmers usually grow Kentucky bluegrass, which germinates slowly compared to other turfgrass species, increasing the risk of washouts.

We decided to mix a faster‑germinating species – perennial ryegrass – with Kentucky bluegrass grown on plastic and then tested various seeding ratios. We found that an 84% Kentucky bluegrass and 16% perennial ryegrass mixture produced a stronger sod than pure Kentucky bluegrass alone four months after seeding. Since 2025, these findings have been used on sod farms across North America, beyond those growing grass for the World Cup.

Stabilizing the surface

“One World Cup game is equal to a Super Bowl,” FIFA officials like to remind us. Since each field will host a lot of games and ceremonies, including up to nine games over six weeks, the fields need to be extremely strong.

To make them tougher, we mix plastic fibers into the natural grass, which creates a hybrid turfgrass system. As the grass grows, its roots wrap around these plastic fibers, which helps to keep the surface stable and firm. These fibers are also colored to match the natural grass, so even if the real grass wears down, they help the field stay green.

Hybrid turfgrass systems can be created in two ways: by stitching plastic fibers into an existing grass field or by laying down a carpet of plastic fibers that is then filled with sand and seeded to grow new grass.

Stitched systems have been used in World Cup games for a long time, but carpet systems are still fairly new to the tournament – they have been used only in the 2023 Women’s World Cup.

We tested eight carpet systems to see how they performed and found that all could be successfully grown on plastic. All the surface performance tests – ball bounce, rotational resistance and surface hardness – on these eight carpets also met FIFA standards.

One type of carpet was chosen by three host cities for their stadiums: Vancouver, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia.

Getting the sod from farm to stadium

Most of the stadiums – 14 of them – will have sod that is grown on plastic, then rolled up and shipped to the venue during spring 2026. Some of the grasses won’t have to travel far, but some will be shipped in refrigerated trucks across the country. Since the sod remains fully intact after harvest, it can withstand long travel times.

Five of those stadiums don’t get enough sunlight, so they will use cool-season grasses that require less light than warm-season grasses.

While the open-air stadium in Miami will use Bermudagrass, the domed stadium in Houston, despite being at a similar latitude, will use the Kentucky bluegrass and perennial ryegrass mix. That means cross-country trips from cool-season sod farms in Denver and Washington to domed stadiums in the southern regions is essential.

It’s wild to think that this is all necessary, but the length of the tournament and unique stadium environments call for innovation.

The University of Tennessee was the prime awardee of the FIFA grant. Michigan State University is a subawardee. John N. Trey Rogers is the principal investigator for the Michigan State work.

Jackie Lyn A. Guevara is affiliated with Michigan State University. She received compensation through a FIFA grant awarded to Michigan State University.

John Sorochan is the principal investigator for the FIFA grant at the University of Tennessee.

Ryan Bearss works for Michigan State University

– ref. We designed the turf for soccer’s biggest World Cup ever – here’s how we created the same playing experience across 3 countries – https://theconversation.com/we-designed-the-turf-for-soccers-biggest-world-cup-ever-heres-how-we-created-the-same-playing-experience-across-3-countries-279536

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Kathryn Spearman, Assistant Professor of Nursing, Penn State

Dr. Cerina Wanzer Fairfax was an accomplished dentist and a loving mom to two teenage children. On April 16, 2026, she was killed by her estranged husband, former Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, who then killed himself, according to news reports. This apparent intimate partner murder-suicide has garnered widespread media attention because of Justin Fairfax’s public profile.

As if to prove how pervasive such incidents are, just three days later, on April 19, 2026, eight children were killed in a mass shooting related to intimate partner violence in Louisiana. Seven of the children were shot by their father, who also killed another child and wounded his wife and another woman in the same attack, according to news reports. Both wounded women were mothers of some of the seven children.

Two-thirds of mass shootings in the United States are linked to domestic violence, and 40% of the victims in domestic violence-related mass shootings are children. The terms domestic violence homicide and intimate partner homicide are often used interchangeably, but the former includes all killings within a household or family, while the latter specifically refers to murders related to a current or former partner.

I am a public health nurse scientist who studies risk factors for intimate partner homicides and post-separation abuse. Research consistently shows that the period of separation and divorce is when the risk of intimate partner homicide is highest.

Tragically, the warning signs that precede homicides by an intimate partner are common but often misunderstood or unrecognized. All too often, escalating behaviors during separation may be chalked up to a “messy divorce” or “custody battle.” But such language obscures patterns of danger that are recognizable, predictable – and, importantly, preventable.

Clear warning signs for domestic violence homicides

Four of the most dangerous warning signs that a woman is at risk of being murdered by an intimate partner are firearm access, separation, prior nonfatal strangulation and stalking. Other red flags that indicate a partner may kill include unemployment, substance use, problematic drinking, controlling or jealous behavior, abuse during pregnancy, rape and prior threats of suicide or with weapons.

The pattern of behavior matters. These risk factors have been studied extensively and are best understood not in isolation but in how they interact.

Several elements in the Fairfax case were red flags that should have prompted intervention: Justin Fairfax’s unemployment, problematic drinking and firearm access; a prior concern for suicide; and a separation that involved an ongoing family court case for divorce and child custody. The warning signs were there: Dr. Cerina Wanzer Fairfax was in danger.

Who is most at risk?

Nearly five women are murdered in America every day by a current, former or estranged intimate partner. Intimate partner homicide is a leading cause of mortality for women of reproductive age, and Black women are murdered at disproportionately higher rates. The vast majority of adult victims of intimate partner murder-suicides – 95% – are women. The killer is almost always a man, the weapon is most often a gun, and these incidents occur most often in the home.

The uncomfortable truth is that the home is the most dangerous place for women.

Children are not spared from this danger. Research shows that children are at risk if their mothers are at risk, and intimate partner violence is also a leading cause of death of American children. What’s more, 40% of children who are murdered in a domestic violence mass shooting are killed by a parent – someone who should love and protect them – most often in their homes.

Turns out, home is the most dangerous place for children too.

Children who survive their mothers’ murder find their bodies or witness the homicide in about 70% of cases.

Cerina Wanzer Fairfax’s teenage son found her and called 911. Behind these heartbreaking details is trauma that is difficult to comprehend. The needs and long-term outcomes of child survivors of intimate partner homicide, like the Fairfax children and those who may have witnessed the Louisiana mass shooting, remain largely invisible in the research on domestic violence. Addressing this research gap is essential for communities to respond effectively to support the needs of children who are surviving devastating grief.

Separation is the most lethal time

Contrary to common misperception, leaving an abusive relationship does not end the abuse – nor does it necessarily lead to safety. About half of murders of women by an intimate partner occur as or after a woman tries to leave the relationship or when she is involved in civil family law proceedings, including civil protective orders, child custody, separation and divorce. Physical separation, such as moving out, coupled with legal separation is associated with the greatest risk.

The gunman in the Louisiana case was separating from his wife, and the duo had a court appearance scheduled for the day following the shooting, according to news reports.

Separation is particularly risky from a controlling partner, or perhaps more aptly worded, from someone who is losing control. Women who leave a controlling male partner are nine times more likely to be murdered.

The judge in the Fairfax custody proceedings noted that Justin Fairfax had purchased a gun in 2022 with money designated for their children’s activities. People who engage in abusive behaviors may directly or indirectly threaten their partners with firearms, which can often include subtle threats toward their children.

Assessing risk and accessing interventions

Guns and separation are a deadly combination. Research shows that in about 3 in 5 cases of murder-suicide perpetrated by men with a firearm, family court is somehow involved. In other words, the homicide perpetrator was participating in legal proceedings relating to separation, divorce or child custody.

This evidence points to family court proceedings as a place where interventions could work. Research shows that domestic violence protection orders, which allow courts to remove firearms from people identified as being at high risk for using violence against a partner, reduce the risk of intimate partner homicide-suicides. Removing firearm access is one of the few effective interventions for reducing intimate partner homicide.

Researchers have developed tools that can help advocates and legal professionals identify women most at risk as well as help women recognize their own risk. A particularly well-tested one is the danger assessment, which can be used in health, legal and advocacy settings.

But screening on its own is not enough. Women at high risk need to be connected to safety planning resources. People who may be concerned for themselves or a loved one can use an app such as MyPlan, which incorporates the danger assessment and provides safety planning suggestions.

Intimate partner homicides follow a pattern of known, predictable risks. And predictable patterns are very often preventable. The warning signs are well studied. Translating that knowledge into consistent recognition and response across courts, law enforcement and communities is where the work remains.

Kathryn Spearman has received funding for her research from Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and The Pennsylvania State University Child Maltreatment Solutions Network.

– ref. Intimate partner homicide has clear warning signs – and is often preventable, research shows – https://theconversation.com/intimate-partner-homicide-has-clear-warning-signs-and-is-often-preventable-research-shows-280984

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jonathan van Harmelen, Visiting Assistant Professor, Oberlin College and Conservatory

For the past 13 years, Maricopa County in Arizona has attempted to reform its sheriff’s department after Joe Arpaio made it into a national flash point for extreme immigration tactics. After a legal immigrant sued Arpaio and the county Sheriff’s Office, a federal district court ruled in 2015 that Arpaio and his deputies relied on racial profiling to target Latinos.

Arpaio was at the center of that suit. From 2006 to 2017, he implemented his own immigration detention program, instructing deputies to detain anyone who did not carry a valid identification and did not speak English. One U.S. Department of Justice attorney characterized Arpaio as overseeing “the worst pattern of racial profiling by a law enforcement agency in U.S. history.”

Federal oversight has since aimed to reform the sheriff’s department and improve trust with the county’s Latino residents, which had been destroyed under Arpaio’s tenure.

As a historian of U.S. immigration, I believe Arpaio’s immigration detention methods are clearly echoed in the hardline immigration policies devised by presidential aide Stephen Miller. That’s evident in actions by immigration agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection that have been described as inhumane by some lawmakers and civil rights groups.

A blueprint for ICE facilities

From his election to sheriff in 1993 until 2017, Arpaio made constant headlines for his creation of a tent jail and his heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics.

Using surplus army tents from the Korean War to house up to 1,700 inmates, Arpaio built Tent City in August 1993 to address overcrowding in Phoenix jails. By the time the jail closed in 2017, Sheriff Paul Penzone estimated that running Tent City cost taxpayers US$8.5 million annually.

Tent City was initially used for detaining criminals, but after 2009, Arpaio used the facility for housing detained immigrants.

News reports said Arpaio forced inmates to wear pink underwear and often fed them expired food and undrinkable water. The tents did little to shield inmates from the Arizona desert, where temperatures rose to 130 degrees Fahrenheit, (54 degrees celsius) at times. Tent City stirred a national uproar.

Starting in 2006, Arpaio and Maricopa County sheriffs engaged in a pattern of “unlawful discriminatory police conduct directed at Hispanic persons,” according to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Kappelhoff. During these operations, he directed deputies to detain people suspected as being undocumented immigrants without legal immigration authorization.

Arpaio’s deputies explicitly targeted Latino drivers in their traffic stops. A Department of Justice investigation concluded that Arpaio used race as a criteria for stopping and detaining Latino drivers. Legal U.S. residents and U.S. citizens were occasionally arrested in these sweeps.

Phoenix News-Times journalist Stephen Lemons in January 2009 noted that, during operations, some Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies wore ski masks and carried assault rifles while conducting immigration sweeps.

Camp East Montana

Tent City appears to be an early version of the detention facilities used by ICE today, where detainees have complained of squalid conditions and poor food.

ICE currently detains some 70,000 people in 224 detention centers nationwide. Of those, two camps, Camp East Montana near El Paso, Texas, and Alligator Alcatraz in Florida, are eerily similar to Tent City.

Camp East Montana is the most recent of these new facilities. Opened in August 2025, the 60-acre detention center has become one of the largest ICE facilities in the U.S., holding 5,000 detainees.

Like Tent City, Camp East Montana was constructed using tents that do little to shield inmates from the elements. The Washington Post reported in September that the facility’s poor food, shoddy living quarters and exposure to the desert sun violated 60 federal regulations.

The cost of inhumane policies

During Arpaio’s tenure, his office faced 6,000 federal lawsuits.

Those included a $9 million payout to the parents of Charles Agster III, after a federal jury found Arpaio and jailhouse nurses negligent in his death. And they included a $2 million payout to the parents of Brian Crenshaw after the disabled man died following an altercation with a sheriff’s detention officer.

The most costly, though, was the 2013 ruling in Melendres v. Arpaio. U.S. District Judge Murray Snow found Arpaio guilty of racial profiling. The ruling placed Arpaio’s office under federal monitoring with orders to overhaul the department. As a result, Maricopa County residents have paid $323 million to reform the department.

Arpaio left office in January 2017. Months later, Tent City closed. After a failed attempt to run for U.S. Senate in 2018, Arpaio retired from politics.

But I believe that the resemblance between Arpaio’s fixation on immigration and Trump’s deportation campaign remains.

Since Trump’s second election, ICE and CBP agents have followed Arpaio’s playbook. Along with erecting tent jails for detaining immigrants, agents have used racial profiling during immigration raids. Consequently, hundreds of U.S. citizens have been detained during raids and protests.

On April 2, 2026, Judge Jennifer Thurston ruled that CBP agents violated court orders and “again detained people without reasonable suspicion” – tactics similar to those used by Arpaio.

Arpaio’s policies foreshadowed Trump’s deportation policy: one that uses racial profiling and shows little regard for human rights.

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent in Noem v. Vazquez-Perdomo in 2025, many Latinos now carry proof of citizenship out of fear of racial profiling.

In July 2017, a federal court found Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt for violating a 2011 federal order to stop detaining people solely on suspicion of illegal immigration status.

A month later, before Arpaio’s sentencing, Trump pardoned Arpaio. He described the sheriff as a “great American patriot” who had “done a lot in the fight against illegal immigration.”

Jonathan van Harmelen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ICE’s heavy-handed immigration enforcement was tried once before – by Arizona’s notorious sheriff Joe Arpaio in the early 2000s – https://theconversation.com/ices-heavy-handed-immigration-enforcement-was-tried-once-before-by-arizonas-notorious-sheriff-joe-arpaio-in-the-early-2000s-279310

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Robert Forrant, Professor of U.S. History and Labor Studies, UMass Lowell

On a spring morning in 1914, miners in Ludlow, Colorado, were celebrating Greek Easter when the Colorado National Guard and a private security agency opened fire on their camp with a machine-gun-equipped armored car called the Death Special.

The miners waged a pitched battle with the National Guard for 10 days before President Woodrow Wilson ordered federal soldiers to intervene. An estimated 69 to 199 people were killed. It was the end of one of the most bitter and violent miner strikes in U.S. labor history, which had begun in September 1913. The strike and massacre prompted Congress to take a hard look at labor reform. But significant changes in labor relations and unionization didn’t come until the mid-1930s.

Some state labor laws were on the books, but in 1914 the U.S. House Committee on Mines and Mining reported: “Colorado has good mining laws and such that ought to afford protection to the miners as to safety in the mine if they were enforced, yet in this State the percentage of fatalities is larger than any other, showing there is undoubtedly something wrong in reference to the management of its coal mines.”

Once the initial shock of the violence wore off, the Ludlow strike received little public attention outside of the immediate families affected and some Colorado residents until late in the 20th century. In “Where Are the Workers,” Mary Anne Trasciatti, a professor at Hofstra University, and I edited a collection of essays written by labor historians and archivists that explore nationwide efforts to bring the history of labor and working people into mainstream narratives of U.S. history.

The Ludlow Massacre is one of the most dramatic and deadly of those stories. It rivals the West Virginia Mine Wars of the 1920s.

The Ludlow Massacre

In September 1913, roughly 10,000 mostly immigrant miners who worked for the Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. went on strike. The miners were represented by the United Mine Workers of America, which submitted a list of demands when the strike began, including implementing the eight-hour workday, being compensated for the time miners spent in the shafts, and the right to select their own housing and doctors.

Since national strikes were called in the 1880s demanding the eight-hour day, this had been a goal for workers throughout the U.S. In Colorado, voters had endorsed such an amendment to the state constitution in 1902, but it was not uniformly enforced.

Coal mining in the early 1900s was labor intensive and dangerous. Death rates were high. Workers had no say in how the mines operated. From 1884 to 1912, more than 1,708 men died in the state’s coal mines, a rate twice the national average. In 1910, explosions at two Colorado Fuel & Iron mines killed 131 people. In 1912, 125 workers lost their lives in mine accidents across Colorado. That year, the annual death rate in Colorado’s mines was 7.06 per 1,000 employees, compared to a national rate of 3.15. Every trip down a shaft was fraught, with workers paid only for the weight of the coal they mined, not for their travel time.

John D. Rockefeller, the nation’s wealthiest man at the time of the strike, was the main owner of the fuel and iron company. With about 10,000 workers and nearly 70,000 acres of land under control, Colorado Fuel and Iron was one of the most powerful mining companies of that era.

Coal companies often owned entire towns, including miners’ homes, which was the case in Ludlow. Worker protests often led to widespread evictions. As a result of the Ludlow strike, 1,200 coal miners and their families were evicted and took refuge in tent colonies around the mines during the winter of 1913-14.

Colorado Fuel & Iron hired and armed 300 members of a private security agency known as Baldwin-Felts when the strike began. The agency was founded in the early 1890s by William Gibbony Baldwin and employed by mining companies in West Virginia and Colorado to repress strikes. Their job was to keep order and – if possible – break the walkout and reopen the mines.

Members of the United Mine Workers of America armed themselves as conflicts with the mining company’s private security force intensified.

Eventually, the Colorado governor, Elias M. Ammons, ordered the Colorado National Guard to join the fray on the corporation’s side, with the Rockefellers paying their wages. The Guard arrested hundreds of strikers.

Then, on April 20, 1914, the National Guard and the private company opened fire on the tent colonies where the miners lived. After several hours of gunfire, with miners defending their camp, 25 people were dead, including two women and eleven children trapped when the camp was intentionally set ablaze.

Months earlier, miners had dug foxholes under tents so women and children could avoid bullets randomly fired through the camps. When the armored vehicle opened fire, everyone in the camps ducked into the holes. Later, women and children were found by miners huddled together at the bottoms of their burned-out tents.

Many miners’ family members were saved when the engineer on a passing train witnessed what was happening and stopped on the track to shield them from the gunfire.

This violence led to 10 more days of conflict before President Wilson finally ordered federal troops to disarm both sides.

Changes to labor law

In Congress, the House Committee on Mines and Mining conducted an investigation into the events and released a report in 1915. John D. Rockefeller Jr. was summoned before the committee, where he was questioned for several hours on May 20, 1914. There, he admitted that he had not visited the site since the incidents that led to the deaths of workers and their families.

According to a New York Times report, when asked whether he knew that thousands of his employees had been evicted from their homes and were living in tent colonies, and that the striking workers and their families were suffering without work or food, Rockefeller replied that he could not say, but that company officials could provide the facts. None were forthcoming.

A federal Commission on Industrial Relations also held hearings, determined to quell the upsurge in early 20th-century labor violence.

In 1912, the immigrant- and women-led Bread and Roses strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, also led to a congressional investigation. In its report on the 1914 miners’ strike, the commission described the strike by workers as “against arbitrary power.” It summarized that miners “passionately felt” that they were denied “a voice in fixing working conditions in the mines” and that political democracy had been “repudiated by the owners.”

The commission determined that the strike raised a fundamental question about whether workers had a right to a voice at work. This question would animate labor struggles into the 1930s.

In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act, which provided federal guidelines for labor union formation and stated that workers had a federal right to bargain over wages, hours and conditions of employment, the very things Colorado coal miners sought when they went on strike in 1913.

Commemorating the Ludlow strike and massacre

In 1915, officers of the United Mine Workers of America purchased 40 acres of land north of the Ludlow, Colorado, train depot, on the site where the tent colony had sheltered coal miners and their families during the 1913-14 strike.

Three years later, United Mine Workers officials dedicated a granite monument at the site where the women and children were killed. Labor historian James Green noted that of all the violence against workers at the time, none shocked the nation or troubled its collective conscience more than the Ludlow massacre because of the deaths of children. However, even incidents like the Ludlow Massacre did not become a significant part of the public discourse. This has changed some in the recent past.

Today, the tent colony site is a National Historic Landmark.

The labor movement in the United States remains a bulwark of democracy, and workers have often been a driving force for social and economic equality in their communities. Yet its stories are not widely known, even one so dramatic as this battle in the Colorado coalfields.

The recognition of the Ludlow site as a National Historic Landmark and the recent release of a Library of Congress research guide propel the history of labor and working people into the mainstream. Such place-based labor history promotes our understanding of how and why things we sometimes take for granted – such as the eight-hour workday, paid holidays or workplace safety laws – came about only because people were willing to risk their lives fighting for these rights.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Robert Forrant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. 1914 Ludlow Massacre took lives of 25 miners and family members during bitter strike for fair wages and conditions – https://theconversation.com/1914-ludlow-massacre-took-lives-of-25-miners-and-family-members-during-bitter-strike-for-fair-wages-and-conditions-278626

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Lise Eliot, Professor of Neuroscience, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science

Girls and boys are equally social at birth.

This finding, based on my team’s synthesis of six decades of research, may come as a surprise. Gender differences in adults’ social sensitivity are famous. Women outperform men at recognizing faces and emotions, and they score modestly higher on measures of empathy. They are likelier to take jobs working with people, such as in teaching and health care, whereas men are likelier to choose jobs working with “things,” such as in engineering or plumbing.

But how early do these differences emerge, and are they a matter of evolution or social learning? For years, some theorists have argued the former: that the difference is innate, built into the brain hardware of girls and boys through Darwinian selection. But this perspective relies almost exclusively on just one high-profile, yet deeply flawed, study of 102 newborns.

Mining the neonatal research trove

Realizing that psychologists have been studying newborns’ social orientation for decades, my team of neurobehavioral researchers and I set out to collect all the data – every published study that has compared boys’ and girls’ attention to social stimuli in the first month of life. Our goal was to better test the hypothesis of an inborn gender difference in attention to, or interest in, other people.

Our study was a systematic review, meaning we searched through every published report indexed in both medical and psychological databases from the 1960s onward.

We cast a wide net, looking for any research that measured newborns’ attention to or preference for human faces or voices and that reported the data separately by gender. Importantly, we did not limit our search to the terms “gender difference” or “sex difference,” since these would bias the collection by potentially excluding studies that failed to find boy-girl differences.

As expected, we unearthed dozens of studies comparing newborn boys and girls on social perception: 40 experiments reported in 31 peer-reviewed studies and involving nearly 2,000 infants. The majority of studies measured the amount of time newborns spent looking at faces, either at a single face or comparing a baby’s preference between two faces of differing social value, such as their own mother versus a woman who was a stranger.

Our data collection was large enough that we were able to carry out meta-analysis, which is a statistical method for combining the results of many studies. Meta-analysis essentially turns many small studies into a single large one. For studies measuring neonates’ looking time at faces, this included 667 infants, half of them boys and half of them girls.

The result was clear: nearly identical social perception between baby boys and girls. There was no significant difference between genders overall, nor was there a difference when we focused only on studies measuring babies’ gaze duration on a single face, or only on studies measuring babies’ gaze preference between two different faces.

Our search also netted two other types of studies. One focused on a remarkable behavior: newborns’ tendency to start crying when they hear another baby cry. An early study found this “contagious crying” to be marginally more common in girls. But when we performed meta-analysis on data across nine contagious-crying experiments, including 387 infants, there was again no solid evidence for male-female difference.

The last dataset we analyzed compared babies’ orientation to both social and inanimate objects using a newborn behavior assessment scale developed by legendary pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton. Across four studies involving 619 infants, girls did pay somewhat greater attention to the social stimuli (a human face or voice), but they also paid more attention to the inanimate stimuli (a ball or the sound of a rattle).

In other words, girls in this test seemed a bit more attuned to every type of stimulus, perhaps due to a general maturity advantage that they hold from fetal development through puberty. But there was nothing special about their interest in people, according to the Brazelton assessment.

Boys, too, prefer faces

Our findings align with other well-designed studies, including one finding that 5-month-old boys and girls equally prefer looking at faces over toy cars or other objects, and another finding that 2-month-old boys actually perform better than girls at detecting faces. So taken together, current research dispels a common myth that girls are innately “hardwired” to be more social than boys in early life.

The truth is that all babies are wired for social engagement at birth. Boys and girls are both primed to pay attention to human faces and voices, which, after all, belong to those who will keep them fed, safe and comforted.

Despite their best intentions, most parents cannot help but stereotype their infants by gender and begin treating boys and girls differently early on. Presuming that sons are already less social is not a recipe for remedying this bias. Our research can help dispel this myth, giving every child, male or female, the best possible start for connecting with and caring about other people.

Lise Eliot receives research funding from the Fred B. Snite Foundation.

– ref. It’s a myth that baby boys are less social than girls – a new look at decades of research shows all babies are born to connect – https://theconversation.com/its-a-myth-that-baby-boys-are-less-social-than-girls-a-new-look-at-decades-of-research-shows-all-babies-are-born-to-connect-277453