# data[].attributes.body
I learned that when you ask questions it is important to make sure that your tone dose not come across mean or rude. and also that it can take time for someone to agree. Also that it can be better when you try to see it from the other persons side of the conversation.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose the Article about Abraham Lincoln because I've always admired him and how brave he was. When I read the Article I noticed that something that causes dislike and hatred is not agreeing with something they think is right. Like the Mexican-American War. Abraham Lincoln spoke against it and people disliked him for it. another thing that causes dislike between people is jealousy. people's envy can cause them to feel hatred because they want what that person has.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this article because I feel like the psychology of hate could maybe give me more of a scientific answer of this question. This article explains that heat is a root of fear. Fear forms into hate because they are scared of what is different of them. This article explains that it is also a human instinct to hate therefore it is to protect themselves from what they find different. That alone causes so much conflict. It also says that Lack of self compassion if you were to hate yourself as well it is easier to hate someone else since you don't have respect for yourself why would you want to give respect to someone else. Hate comes from Fear but it can also come from hurt maybe they fear hurt because of that they fear. One thing I realized is hatred doesn't always come from hurt it also comes from just being scared of something that you have not been familiar with. And that mechanism in your head causes you to hate. But I believe that they don't respect themselves enough. It could be just fear with themselves maybe they are not at peace with themselves and that causes them to hate others because they feel that just because they are not at peace with themselves it causes them to go against everyone else. But what I'm concluding is hate comes from Fear. It could also just because you are feeling avoid and you and hatred can just only fulfill you because there's a theory about it. -keren Sanchez urbano

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, several members of a group calling itself "Respect the Flag" were sentenced to prison for terrorizing guests at the birthday party of an 8-year-old African-American girl in Georgia. Pointing a shotgun, they yelled racial slurs and death threats at guests, including children.

It wasn't an isolated incident. According to a recent study, there are at least 917 organized hate groups in the United States. The study, based on data collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and presented in their annual census of hate groups, looked at the presence of hate groups on Twitter. SPLC found that the number of likes and comments on hate group accounts grew by 900 percent in the last two years.

Why do we hate? The reasons are complex, but following are some of the factors that may play a role in helping us understand hate and, hopefully, work toward change.
Fear of "The Other"
According to A.J. Marsden, assistant professor of psychology and human services at Beacon College in Leesburg, Florida, one reason we hate is because we fear things that are different from us.

Behavioral researcher Patrick Wanis, cites the in-group out-group theory, which posits that when we feel threatened by perceived outsiders, we instinctively turn toward our in-group-those with whom we identify-as a survival mechanism. Wanis explains, "Hatred is driven by two key emotions of love and aggression: One love for the in-group-the group that is favored; and two, aggression for the out-group-the group that has been deemed as being different, dangerous, and a threat to the in-group."
Fear of Ourselves
According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, " I'm not terrible; you are."

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don't like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) - and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues.
Lack of Self-compassion
The antidote to hate is compassion - for others as well as ourselves. Self-compassion means that we accept the whole self. "If we find part of ourselves unacceptable, we tend to attack others in order to defend against the threat," says Reedy. "If we are okay with ourselves, we see others' behaviors as 'about them' and can respond with compassion. If I kept hate in my heart for [another], I would have to hate myself as well. It is only when we learn to hold ourselves with compassion that we may be able to demonstrate it toward others."
It fills a void
Psychologist Bernard Golden, author of Overcoming Destructive Anger: Strategies That Work, believes that when hate involves participation in a group, it may help foster a sense of connection and camaraderie that fills a void in one's identity. He describes hatred of individuals or groups as a way of distracting oneself from the more challenging and anxiety-provoking task of creating one's own identity:

"Acts of hate are attempts to distract oneself from feelings such as helplessness, powerlessness, injustice, inadequacy and shame. Hate is grounded in some sense of perceived threat. It is an attitude that can give rise to hostility and aggression toward individuals or groups. Like much of anger, it is a reaction to and distraction from some form of inner pain. The individual consumed by hate may believe that the only way to regain some sense of power over his or her pain is to preemptively strike out at others. In this context, each moment of hate is a temporary reprieve from inner suffering."
Societal and Cultural Factors
The answer to why we hate, according to Silvia Dutchevici, LCSW, president and founder of the Critical Therapy Center, lies not only in our psychological makeup or family history, but also in our cultural and political history. "We live in a war culture that promotes violence, in which competition is a way of life," she says. "We fear connecting because it requires us to reveal something about ourselves. We are taught to hate the enemy - meaning anyone different than us - which leaves little room for vulnerability and an exploration of hate through empathic discourse and understanding. In our current society, one is more ready to fight than to resolve conflict. Peace is seldom the option."
What Can We Do?
Hatred has to be learned, Golden says: "We are all born with the capacity for aggression as well as compassion. Which tendencies we embrace requires mindful choice by individuals, families, communities and our culture in general. The key to overcoming hate is education: at home, in schools, and in the community."

According to Dutchevici, facing the fear of being vulnerable and utterly human is what allows us to connect, to feel, and ultimately, to love. She suggests creating "cracks in the system." These cracks can be as simple as connecting to your neighbor, talking with a friend, starting a protest, or even going to therapy and connecting with an 'Other.' It is through these acts that one can understand hate and love."

In other words, compassion towards others is the true context that heals.
The SPLC encourages anyone who witnesses a hate crime - including hateful harassment or intimidation - to first report the incident to local authorities, then go to SPLC's #ReportHate intake page to continue the effort to track hate in the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, several members of a group calling itself "Respect the Flag" were sentenced to prison for terrorizing guests at the birthday party of an 8-year-old African-American girl in Georgia. Pointing a shotgun, they yelled racial slurs and death threats at guests, including children. It wasn't an isolated incident.

# data[].attributes.body
I read about the psychology of hate to learn about what might cause hate/dislike. I thought that the topic would only cover things like, "hate is caused by jealousy or envy." But, hate can be caused by having the fear of others or yourself OR lack of Self-compassion, etc. I know that hate is a common thing we have to experience in life, but reading this article helped me understand the reasons why we hate. It also helped me understand the different causes that would create hate, like for example, fearing others. That could probably be from trauma or an event that included something that someone could hate in the future or trying to fit in the society that is hateful towards something or someone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, several members of a group calling itself "Respect the Flag" were sentenced to prison for terrorizing guests at the birthday party of an 8-year-old African-American girl in Georgia. Pointing a shotgun, they yelled racial slurs and death threats at guests, including children.

It wasn't an isolated incident. According to a recent study, there are at least 917 organized hate groups in the United States. The study, based on data collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and presented in their annual census of hate groups, looked at the presence of hate groups on Twitter. SPLC found that the number of likes and comments on hate group accounts grew by 900 percent in the last two years.

Why do we hate? The reasons are complex, but following are some of the factors that may play a role in helping us understand hate and, hopefully, work toward change.
Fear of "The Other"
According to A.J. Marsden, assistant professor of psychology and human services at Beacon College in Leesburg, Florida, one reason we hate is because we fear things that are different from us.

Behavioral researcher Patrick Wanis, cites the in-group out-group theory, which posits that when we feel threatened by perceived outsiders, we instinctively turn toward our in-group-those with whom we identify-as a survival mechanism. Wanis explains, "Hatred is driven by two key emotions of love and aggression: One love for the in-group-the group that is favored; and two, aggression for the out-group-the group that has been deemed as being different, dangerous, and a threat to the in-group."
Fear of Ourselves
According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, " I'm not terrible; you are."

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don't like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) - and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues.
Lack of Self-compassion
The antidote to hate is compassion - for others as well as ourselves. Self-compassion means that we accept the whole self. "If we find part of ourselves unacceptable, we tend to attack others in order to defend against the threat," says Reedy. "If we are okay with ourselves, we see others' behaviors as 'about them' and can respond with compassion. If I kept hate in my heart for [another], I would have to hate myself as well. It is only when we learn to hold ourselves with compassion that we may be able to demonstrate it toward others."
It fills a void
Psychologist Bernard Golden, author of Overcoming Destructive Anger: Strategies That Work, believes that when hate involves participation in a group, it may help foster a sense of connection and camaraderie that fills a void in one's identity. He describes hatred of individuals or groups as a way of distracting oneself from the more challenging and anxiety-provoking task of creating one's own identity:

"Acts of hate are attempts to distract oneself from feelings such as helplessness, powerlessness, injustice, inadequacy and shame. Hate is grounded in some sense of perceived threat. It is an attitude that can give rise to hostility and aggression toward individuals or groups. Like much of anger, it is a reaction to and distraction from some form of inner pain. The individual consumed by hate may believe that the only way to regain some sense of power over his or her pain is to preemptively strike out at others. In this context, each moment of hate is a temporary reprieve from inner suffering."
Societal and Cultural Factors
The answer to why we hate, according to Silvia Dutchevici, LCSW, president and founder of the Critical Therapy Center, lies not only in our psychological makeup or family history, but also in our cultural and political history. "We live in a war culture that promotes violence, in which competition is a way of life," she says. "We fear connecting because it requires us to reveal something about ourselves. We are taught to hate the enemy - meaning anyone different than us - which leaves little room for vulnerability and an exploration of hate through empathic discourse and understanding. In our current society, one is more ready to fight than to resolve conflict. Peace is seldom the option."
What Can We Do?
Hatred has to be learned, Golden says: "We are all born with the capacity for aggression as well as compassion. Which tendencies we embrace requires mindful choice by individuals, families, communities and our culture in general. The key to overcoming hate is education: at home, in schools, and in the community."

According to Dutchevici, facing the fear of being vulnerable and utterly human is what allows us to connect, to feel, and ultimately, to love. She suggests creating "cracks in the system." These cracks can be as simple as connecting to your neighbor, talking with a friend, starting a protest, or even going to therapy and connecting with an 'Other.' It is through these acts that one can understand hate and love."

In other words, compassion towards others is the true context that heals.
The SPLC encourages anyone who witnesses a hate crime - including hateful harassment or intimidation - to first report the incident to local authorities, then go to SPLC's #ReportHate intake page to continue the effort to track hate in the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, several members of a group calling itself "Respect the Flag" were sentenced to prison for terrorizing guests at the birthday party of an 8-year-old African-American girl in Georgia. Pointing a shotgun, they yelled racial slurs and death threats at guests, including children. It wasn't an isolated incident.

# data[].attributes.body
Some things that can cause dislike are that people think they know the person's situation and they just assume things. This happens with celebrities, people think they know their whole life but they actually don't. It taught me that there are celebrities that are going through hard times just like we are. We can't always think that they have this perfect life.

# data[].attributes.headline
i chose to read this article about ja morant because he has made alot of bad mistakes in his past and it showed that bad incomes could effect your future he had flashed weapons and his consequences where multiple game suspension

# data[].attributes.subject
i chose to read this article about ja morant because he has made alot of bad mistakes in his past and it showed that bad incomes could effect your future he had flashed weapons and his consequences where multiple game suspension

# data[].attributes.body
This article taught me that jealousy is caused by when a person sees a threat to a valued relationship from a third party. The article taught me that jealousy can be a helpful emotion because it can get you to realize that something is wrong with the relationship. But extreme jealousy can definitely be negative, unwarranted jealousy often causes unrest or dissatisfaction in the relationship, jealous people can act in ways that that are unreasonable or even dangerous. This is something that can cause dislike, because when someone is jealous they would probably already not like the third party involved in making them jealous even if they never met them, but it would also make the other person in the relationship dislike the other because they would be acting weird for no reason.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jealousy is a complex emotion that encompasses feelings ranging from suspicion to rage to fear to humiliation. It strikes people of all ages, genders, and sexual orientations, and is most typically aroused when a person perceives a threat to a valued relationship from a third party. The threat may b…

# data[].attributes.body
This article showed me that jealousy can be caused from rage, fear or humiliation. When you get jealous or experience jealously you should not ignore this emotion and hope it will go away on its own. If you know someone experiencing jealously you should show them compassion and not dislike. Envy is when two people are involved and jealousy is when more than two people are alive. You can have a positive experience with jealousy. It can form social bonds and motivate people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jealousy is a complex emotion that encompasses feelings ranging from suspicion to rage to fear to humiliation. It strikes people of all ages, genders, and sexual orientations, and is most typically aroused when a person perceives a threat to a valued relationship from a third party. The threat may b…

# data[].attributes.body
Sometimes people hate each other because they think they know the other person very well but in fact they don't at all. This happens a lot with celebrities, news articles are always popping up thinking that their theories and statements are correct or twisting the situation to make it more exaggerated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Britney Spears has been one of the most successful — and sometimes controversial — solo acts in popular music. Six of her first seven albums reached No. 1 on the Billboard 200.

# data[].attributes.body
there are many different kinds of conflict and a lot of conflict have happened in the past. This article showed all the causes and effects of World War 2. Different countries can have dislike or hatred among each other.

# data[].attributes.body
My article connects with the essential question because it gave me a deeper understanding about why we feel those ways and it also gave answers to the question.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hatred is a relatively stable feeling of intense dislike for another person, entity, or group. Hatred is distinct from short-lived feelings such as anger and disgust. While some forms of animosity may only manifest briefly and mildly, hatred is a form of active, ongoing hostility that often uses up…

# data[].attributes.body
Questions are the key to getting along. Basically, the reason we dislike each other is because we don’t understand each other. We make assumptions based on bits of information that we know about each other, and that can lead to prejudice. But if we were to ask each other questions, we would be able to get to know the other person. This would allow us to understand each other, and strengthen our bond with one another.

# data[].attributes.body
This article taught me the fundements of a healthy conversation and realationship with people. Formulating and using the right tone can lead to succesful conversations, constructing in a way were both speaker feel comfortable will help to strengthen and expand how long the conversation goes for. Even asking people of different races and wealth status can come together and have healthy conversations and realationships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them."

Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

If we're looking for solutions to this growing problem of polarization, we might want to start by asking each other more questions.

As I researched the power of questioning for The Book of Beautiful Questions, I talked to experts in various fields who tended to agree that by asking thoughtful, curious questions of another person, we can quickly build trust and rapport-even with people who might see the world differently than we do.

When questions are formulated and asked the right way, they can do a few key things to draw people closer together, says relationship researcher Arthur Aron. "First, just by asking questions, you're showing that you care about the other person," Aron explains. "Second, the question encourages that person to reveal something about themselves. And then that creates an opportunity for you to respond to what they are revealing."

Over the past few decades, Aron has conducted experiments in which strangers are paired up and instructed to ask one another a series of questions-and he has found it to be a surprisingly effective relationship-building tool. This has even been true when the question-asking experiments were conducted among people who might be expected to have very different perspectives and attitudes. For example, Aron has paired up questioners of different races, and in another study, he instructed police officers and local citizens to ask questions of one another.

After sharing questions and answers, the participants tended to like and understand each other better. Beyond that, Aron also found that the questioning exercises generated positive feelings that extended to the overall group-thus, the person who shared questions with a police officer was then apt to like all police more, and likewise for those who exchanged questions with someone from another race.

Of course, in using questions to better connect with someone, what you ask and how you ask it is critical. Questions worded poorly or asked in the wrong tone can be off-putting or even confrontational. To quote the radio interviewer and expert questioner Krista Tippett: "It's hard to transcend a combative question. But it's hard to resist a generous question. We all have it in us to formulate questions that invite honesty, dignity, and revelation." I think of such inviting questions as "bridge questions"-because they can help us traverse the divide that separates us from others.

Building a Question Bridge

If you'd like to try building a question bridge that might help you reach out to someone you've been having trouble connecting with (be it a co-worker you tend to disagree with or an uncle with sharply different political views), here are few points to keep in mind:

* Begin by asking yourself a question. Why am I trying to cross this particular divide? It's usually a worthwhile and admirable thing to attempt-but just make sure you're doing it for the "right" reasons. Those might include: trying to repair or strengthen a personal relationship that's important to you; trying to promote civil discourse and greater understanding among people within your circle at work, among friends, or at home; or, it could be that you want to broaden your own thinking.

But if you're planning to cross that divide so you can convert someone on the other side to your point of view, forget about it. The evidence suggests you're unlikely to succeed (no matter how many facts and talking points you're armed with)-and you may end up doing more harm than good to the relationship.

* Decide, at the outset, that you're going to be driven by curiosity. And that your "guiding question," throughout this interaction, will be: W hat can I learn from this person who sees things differently than I do?

Not only does curiosity help open up your own thinking to new information, it also signals to the other person that you're coming to this exchange seeking to understand, rather than to attack or judge. You can signal your curiosity in simple ways: foremost by listening intently, but also by prefacing your own questions with phrases like, "I'm curious about something," or "I was wondering about this, and maybe you can help me understand..."

* As you begin, be careful about allowing your own views and assumptions to influence your questions. Particularly when discussing hot-button issues, it's easy to fall into the trap of asking loaded questions such as, How on earth could you believe such a thing? In order to move the conversation forward, you should be asking questions that are free of assumptions, judgments, and veiled criticism, says Jeremy Hay, co-founder of Spaceship Media, a group that organizes and hosts conversations between groups with opposing viewpoints.

One of Spaceship Media's most recent projects, "Guns: An American Conversation," brought together people who disagree on that controversial subject; the participants communicated with each other for a month via a moderated Facebook Group. The moderators coached and steered participants away from asking questions that contained "embedded assumptions." For example, one anti-gun participant initially wanted to ask gun owners in the group, What are you so afraid of?, but was then coached to reframe the question to: Can you tell me more about why you feel you need lots of guns?

* Once you've asked questions that respectfully solicit the other person's views and feelings, try to find some area(s) of agreement. This does not mean you have to back down from your own stance or beliefs. It isn't necessary to agree with someone else's overall position; the idea is to try to find some element of their belief that seems reasonable and understandable--"it could be their goals, intentions, concerns, emotions," says Josh Davis, senior director of research at the Institute for Personal Leadership.

You can use questions to help locate that common ground. James Ryan, dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Education, often relies on the question: Couldn't we at least agree that ___? (You can fill in that blank with anything that seems like a reasonable point both sides can accept). "Asking 'Couldn't we at least agree?' is a way to push back against polarization and extremism, because it is an invitation to find some areas of consensus," according to Ryan. He told me he uses the question "whenever there's an impasse." For example, during heated discussions with fellow educators about different teaching methods, Ryan may ask something like, Couldn't we at least agree that everyone in this room wants to improve education for our students? "It lowers the temperature and refocuses the conversation on what we agree on, instead of what we disagree on," Ryan says.

* Challenge your conversation partner to shift his/her thinking, just a little. And challenge yourself to do likewise. Here are two great questions that can help with that: After you've inquired about the other person's views and shared your own, try asking: Can you find anything in your position that gives you pause? Then follow that up with: Is there anything in my position that you are attracted to or find interesting? Be sure to then turn those two questions on yourself. This forces both of you to acknowledge flaws in your own argument and strengths in the other person's argument. (Hat tip to radio host Tippett, who featured a slightly different version of these two questions in her book, Becoming Wise).

* If all else fails, try this trick. Using a technique adapted from an area of study known as " motivational interviewing," ask your companion to rate something the/she disagrees with on a scale of one to ten. For example: On a scale of 1 to 10, how much of global climate change theory do you think is true? (1 = None of it is true; 10 = All of it is true).

Researchers have found that even when people are rating something they disagree with or don't like, they rarely pick the lowest number. They're more likely to cite a low-range number like two or three. In which case, you can follow up by asking: Why did you pick two or three, instead of the lowest number? To answer that question, the person is almost forced to come up with something positive about your position-which means they are beginning to articulate the other side of their own argument.

* Take it slow. don't expect to reach total agreement on anything quickly. "Science Guy" Bill Nye reminds us that we must be patient with those whose views differ from our own. "We tend to say, 'Look at the facts! Change your mind!' But it can take people a couple of years to change their mind." In the meantime, Nye suggests that "the way to overcome that is to say, 'We're all in this together-let's learn about this together.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them." Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

# data[].attributes.body
This article taught me that no matter what you do you cant please everyone. Not everyone will agree with what you say or do. This can cause conflict because tensions can rise and people might dislike you. We can tell that John Wilkes Booth did not like or agree with what Abraham Lincoln said and did.

# data[].attributes.body
this article taught me that finding a common ground takes a long time. but there are many ways to find it by talking about differnt things. but it also showed me that it is easy to dislike someone but the more you talk you can start to understand and come to a common ground-Nick

# data[].attributes.body
This article taught me that jealousy is not a bad thing at all. It can help build better relationships, bonds can grow stronger.
Because people get jealous and there is a third person involve that's why there can be conflict in jealousy. They can dislike the third party for making them feel jealous.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read about tom brady because people have a lot of resentment for him and even though he made a mistake in the past people wont get over it. it also showed me that its easy to make someone dislike you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Who Is Tom Brady?

Tom Brady was drafted by the NFL's New England Patriots in 2000, and the star quarterback has won three NFL MVP awards, four Super Bowl MVP awards and a record six Super Bowl championships. In an incident known as "Deflategate," Brady was suspended after an investigation into the charges that he knew about the illegal deflation of footballs before an important playoff game in 2015. Despite sitting out the first four games of the 2016 season, Brady went on to lead the Patriots to a Super Bowl LI victory over the Atlanta Falcons and added to his collection with a historic win over the Los Angeles Rams in Super Bowl LIII. After 20 seasons in New England, Brady signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in March 2020. He is also known for his marriage to supermodel Gisele Bündchen.

Early Life and College Career

Thomas Edward Patrick Brady Jr. was born on August 3, 1977, in San Mateo, California, Brady excelled at both football and baseball at Junipero Serra High School. After graduating in 1995, Brady passed up a chance to play professional baseball to go to the University of Michigan.

Although a member of the school's football team, Brady did not spend much time on the field in his first two college seasons. In his junior year, however, he served as the starting quarterback. That season, Brady threw 350 passes for 2,636 yards. In his final season, he helped lead his team to an Orange Bowl victory.

NFL Career

Moving on to the NFL, Brady was drafted by the New England Patriots in the sixth round of the 2000 NFL draft. Initially, he served as a backup quarterback and played in only one game during his first season.

The 2001 season was a different story: After starting quarterback Drew Bledsoe was injured, Brady took over, proving himself a strong leader with a powerful arm. Anyone who doubted his abilities only had to look at the team's record, an impressive 11 wins to 3 losses in the 14 games that Brady started. In the postseason, he helped the team secure a win over the St. Louis Rams at Super Bowl XXXVI, and Brady received the game's MVP award.

Two years later, Brady led his team to another win at Super Bowl XXXVIII against the Carolina Panthers, for which he earned a second Super Bowl MVP award. And in the 2004 season, Brady again led the team to Super Bowl success, taking down the Philadelphia Eagles, 24-21.

In 2005, Brady signed a new six-year contract with the Patriots, and for the 2006 season, the team had a 12-4 record in the regular season.

Near-Undefeated Season and Injury

With star wide receiver Randy Moss in the fold, the Patriots developed one of the most explosive offenses in NFL history in 2007. Brady passed for a then-record 50 touchdown passes to pick up his first MVP award, and the Patriots ran roughshod over the rest of the league en route to an undefeated regular season, before suffering a gut-wrenching loss to the New York Giants at Super Bowl XLII.

During the first game of the 2008 season, Brady was quickly sidelined with a knee injury. He had several surgeries and extensive rehabilitation to repair the damage, forcing him to sit out the entire season. While some wondered whether the injury would be a career-ender, Brady came back to prove the doubters wrong. He signed a new contract with the team in 2010.

In the 2011 season, Brady pulled out all the stops, helping the team secure their place at Super Bowl XLVI. The Patriots once again battled the New York Giants in football's ultimate game. Before the big event, Brady's wife, model Gisele Bündchen, sent out an email to friends and family. She asked them to pray for Brady and to "envision him happy and fulfilled, experiencing with his team a victory." Unfortunately, these prayers went unanswered, as the Giants beat the Patriots, 21-17.

Brady made headlines in December 2012, following a close game between the New England Patriots and San Francisco 49ers. Brady had led the Patriots back from a 28-point deficit by the fourth quarter, but the 49ers ultimately took the game 41-34. Brady later commented on the outcome of the game, stating on WEEI-AM, "I'm really proud of the fact our guys never blinked an eye down 28 points against probably the best defense in the league."

'Deflategate' and Super Bowl XLIX Triumph

After the 2014 season, a new word entered the lexicon of Tom Brady lore: "Deflategate." After Brady's Patriots trounced the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game, it was discovered that several of the 12 game balls used by the Patriots were underinflated, one of them measuring 2 pounds per square inch below the minimum mark allowed by the NFL. Accusations of cheating followed, with Brady saying, "I didn't alter the balls in any way, [and] I would never have someone do something that was outside the rules."

Making the accusations more notable than they otherwise might be, in 2007 Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 for an incident in which the Patriots were caught videotaping the signals of an opposing coach, in direct violation of league rules.

Amid the media frenzy that accompanied the cheating accusations, Brady tried to stay focused on preparing to play the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl XLIX. En route to setting a Super Bowl record with 37 completions, Brady led his team back from a 10-point deficit to notch a thrilling 28-24 victory. With the win, he became the third quarterback to win four championships and the second to earn three Super Bowl MVP awards, cementing his standing as one of the greatest ever to play his position.

The subject of Deflategate returned to the headlines in May 2015, when a report released by investigator Ted Wells revealed that Brady was "generally aware" that a locker room attendant had tampered with footballs prior to the AFC Championship game. The quarterback was suspended for the first four games of the 2015 season, and Commissioner Roger Goodell upheld the punishment in July following an appeal. Brady and the NFL Players Association then filed a lawsuit to have the suspension overturned, their efforts proving successful in early September when a federal judge ruled in the quarterback's favor, on the grounds that the suspension was premised upon legal deficiencies.

The NFL appealed in 2016 and a judge overturned the decision to block Brady's suspension. Brady appealed again, but in July 2016 he said he would accept his suspension.

Historic Super Bowl LI Victory

Despite missing the first four games of the 2016 season, Brady helped the Patriots clinch another spot in the Super Bowl, defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers in the playoffs. Before the championship game, Brady told reporters that he wanted to win the game for his mother, who was suffering from an undisclosed illness. "She's the one I want to win for," Brady said.

With his mother in attendance at the NRG Stadium in Houston and millions of fans watching, Brady did not disappoint. In a thrilling game, the first that went into overtime in NFL history, Brady led the Patriots to a 34-28 victory over the Atlanta Falcons. With this historic win, Brady became the first quarterback in NFL history to take home five Super Bowl rings. He surpassed quarterbacks Joe Montana, one of his idols, and Terry Bradshaw, who both have four Super Bowl wins. He also was awarded his fourth Super Bowl MVP for leading a 25-point comeback and throwing a Super Bowl-record 466 passing yards. Super Bowl LI marked Brady's seventh appearance in the big game, also an NFL record.

More Records and Super Bowl LIII Win

Showing no signs of slowing down at age 40, Brady threw for an NFL-high 4,577 yards while guiding New England to a 13-3 record in 2017. He shrugged off an ESPN report of a supposed rift between the QB, his coach and Patriots owner Robert Kraft, but a more serious issue surfaced in mid-January 2018 when Brady hurt his throwing hand in practice days before the AFC Championship Game. Although the injury reportedly required more than 10 stitches to close, Brady proved able enough to outlast a robust defensive effort from the Jacksonville Jaguars, throwing for a late touchdown to complete the comeback win and claim an amazing eighth AFC title.

Brady lived up to his big-game reputation yet again in Super Bowl LII vs. the Philadelphia Eagles, surpassing his previous year's mark by throwing for a record 505 yards. However, the Patriots were forced to play catch-up nearly all evening, thanks to the inspired play of opposing quarterback Nick Foles, and Brady's last-second heave into the end zone was knocked away to seal the heartbreaking 41-33 defeat.

Even with the disappointing finish, there was little doubt that Brady remained the gold standard at the game's most important position, as illustrated by the NFL Network's designation of him as the league's top-ranked player heading into 2018. While there were signs of slippage - Brady threw 11 interceptions, his highest total since 2013 - the veteran QB continued to come up big when it counted, guiding New England to the Super Bowl for the ninth time in his remarkable career.

Unlike matchups from previous years, Super Bowl LIII between the Patriots and Los Angeles Rams was a low-scoring affair, and Brady didn't even throw a touchdown. Yet, there he was engineering a pair of fourth-quarter scoring drives that helped the Patriots pull away for the 13-3 win, giving the quarterback an incredible sixth Super Bowl victory - the most for any player, at any position.

Farewell to New England

Even with critics carefully scrutinizing the 42-year-old quarterback's play, New England began the 2019 season with eight consecutive wins. The Patriots lost three of their final six games, however, the fears raised by their rocky finish coming to fruition when they were sent packing in the first round of the playoffs by the Tennessee Titans.

Following a season in which his passer rating slipped to 88.0 and he failed to earn a Pro Bowl selection for the first time since his injury-marred 2008 campaign, Brady's NFL future became a source of debate for fans who wondered whether he would retire, re-sign with New England or play elsewhere.

On March 17, 2020, the QB answered one of those questions with a statement posted to his social media accounts that revealed his intention to continue his career elsewhere. Thanking the Patriots faithful, he wrote: "My children were born and raised here and you always embraced this California kid as one of your own. I love your commitment and loyalty to your teams and winning for our city means more than you will ever know."

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

On March 20, 2020, Brady announced that he had signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Two months later, he reunited with longtime New England tight end Rob Gronkowski, who came out of retirement to join his favorite QB in Tampa Bay.

Following a loss to the New Orleans Saints in the 2020 NFL season opener, Brady got his team back on track with three consecutive wins, the last of those powered by an impressive five-touchdown performance. A midseason lull included a crushing 38-3 loss to the Saints, but Brady again righted the ship, closing the regular season with four straight wins to propel Tampa Bay back into the playoffs for the first time in 13 years.

After throwing for 381 yards and two touchdowns in a January 2021 Wild Card win over Washington, Brady threw for two more scores to help Tampa Bay upset the Saints and advance to a conference title game for the 14th time in his career. The following week, the 43-year-old overcame three interceptions to engineer another upset, this time over the Green Bay Packers and became the fourth quarterback to lead two different teams to the Super Bowl.

Personal Life

Along with being a football champion, Brady was chosen as one of People magazine's "50 Most Beautiful People" in 2002 and hosted the popular comedy show Saturday Night Live in 2005.

He and longtime girlfriend Bridget Moynahan split up in late 2006. The next year, she gave birth to their son, John Edward Thomas Moynahan, in August. Brady married Bündchen in February of 2009. The couple welcomed a son named Benjamin in December of that same year and a daughter, Vivian, born in 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tom Brady was drafted by the NFL's New England Patriots in 2000, and the star quarterback has won three NFL MVP awards, four Super Bowl MVP awards and a record six Super Bowl championships. In an incident known as "Deflategate," Brady was suspended after an investigation into the charges that he knew about the illegal deflation of footballs before an important playoff game in 2015.

# data[].attributes.body
This article showed me that large conflicts can cause smaller conflicts to happen. This was showed by the fact that WW2 a big conflict cause smaller conflicts like Japanese Internment because people were scared of spying and espionage. Ben P.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Japanese internment camps were established during World War II by President Franklin Roosevelt through his Executive Order 9066. From 1942 to 1945, it was the policy of the U.S. government that people of Japanese descent would be interred in isolated camps. Enacted in reaction to Pearl Harbor and the ensuing war, the Japanese internment camps are now considered one of the most atrocious violations of American civil rights in the 20th century.

Executive Order 9066

On February 19, 1942, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 with the intention of preventing espionage on American shores.

Military zones were created in California, Washington and Oregon -states with a large population of Japanese Americans-and Roosevelt's executive order commanded the relocation of Americans of Japanese ancestry.

Executive Order 9066 affected the lives about 117,000 people-the majority of whom were American citizens.

Canada soon followed suit, relocating 21,000 of its Japanese residents from its west coast. Mexico enacted its own version, and eventually 2,264 more people of Japanese descent were removed from Peru, Brazil, Chile and Argentina to the United States.

Anti-Japanese Activity

Weeks before the order, the Navy removed citizens of Japanese descent from Terminal Island near the Port of Los Angeles.

On December 7, 1941, just hours after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the FBI rounded-up 1,291 Japanese community and religious leaders, arresting them without evidence and freezing their assets.

In January, the arrestees were transferred to facilities in Montana, New Mexico and North Dakota, many unable to inform their families and most remaining for the duration of the war.

Concurrently, the FBI searched the private homes of thousands of Japanese residents on the West Coast, seizing items considered contraband.

One-third of Hawaii's population was of Japanese descent. In a panic, some politicians called for their mass incarceration. Japanese-owned fishing boats were impounded.

Some Japanese residents were arrested and 1,500 people-one percent of the Japanese population in Hawaii-were sent to camps on the U.S. mainland.

John DeWitt

Lt. General John L. DeWitt, leader of the Western Defense Command, believed that the civilian population needed to be taken control of to prevent a repeat of Pearl Harbor.

To argue his case, DeWitt prepared a report filled with known falsehoods, such as examples of sabotage that were later revealed to be the result of cattle-damaging power lines.

DeWitt suggested the creation of the military zones and Japanese detainment to Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Attorney General Francis Biddle. His original plan included Italians and Germans, though the idea of rounding-up Americans of European descent was not as popular.

At Congressional hearings in February 1942, a majority of the testimonies, including those from California Governor Culbert L. Olson and State Attorney General Earl Warren, declared that all Japanese should be removed.

Biddle pleaded with the president that mass evacuation of citizens was not required, preferring smaller, more targeted security measures. Regardless, Roosevelt signed the order.

War Relocation Authority

After much organizational chaos, about 15,000 Japanese Americans willingly moved out of prohibited areas. Inland state citizens were not keen for new Japanese residents, and they were met with racist resistance.

Ten state governors voiced opposition, fearing the Japanese might never leave, and demanded they be locked up if the states were forced to accept them.

A civilian organization called the War Relocation Authority was set up in March 1942 to administer the plan, with Milton S. Eisenhower from the Department of Agriculture to lead it. Eisenhower only lasted until June 1942, resigning in protest over what he characterized as incarcerating innocent citizens.

Relocation to Assembly Centers

Army-directed evacuations began on March 24. People had six days notice to dispose of their belongings other than what they could carry.

Anyone who was at least 1/16th Japanese was evacuated, including 17,000 children under 10, as well as several thousand elderly and handicapped.

Japanese Americans reported to centers near their homes. From there they were transported to a relocation center where they might live for months before transfer to a permanent wartime residence.

These centers were located in remote areas, often reconfigured fairgrounds and racetracks featuring buildings not meant for human habitation, like horse stalls or cow sheds, that had been converted for that purpose. In Portland, Oregon, 3,000 people stayed in the livestock pavilion of the Pacific International Livestock Exposition Facilities.

The Santa Anita Assembly Center, just several miles northeast of Los Angeles, was a de-facto city with 18,000 interred, 8,500 of whom lived in stables. Food shortages and substandard sanitation were prevalent in these facilities.

Life in Assembly Centers

Assembly centers offered work to detainees with the policy that they should not be paid more than an Army private. Jobs ranged from doctors to teachers to laborers and mechanics. A couple of assembly centers were the sites of camouflage net factories, which provided work.

There were opportunities for farm work during a labor shortage, and over 1,000 internees were sent to other states to do seasonal farm work. Over 4,000 internees were allowed to leave to attend college.

Conditions in Relocation Centers

There were a total of 10 permanent housing camps called Relocation Centers. Typically some form of barracks, several families were housed together, with communal eating areas. Residents that were designated as dissidents went to a special camp in Tule Lake, California.

Two relocation centers in Arizona were located on Indian reservations, despite the protests of tribal councils, who were overruled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Each relocation center was its own town, featuring schools, post offices and work facilities, as well as farmland for growing food and keeping livestock, all surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers.

Net factories offered work at several relocation centers. One housed a naval ship model factory. There were also factories in different centers that manufactured items for use in other centers, including garments, mattresses and cabinets. Several centers had agricultural processing plants.

Violence in Relocation Centers

Violence occasionally occurred in centers. In Lordsburg, New Mexico, internees were delivered by trains and marched two miles at night to the camp.

An elderly man attempted to flee and was shot and killed. After settling in, at least two men were shot and killed while trying to escape.

On August 4, 1942, a riot broke out in the Santa Anita facility, the result of anger about insufficient rations and overcrowding. At Manzanar, California, tensions resulted in the beating of a Japanese American Citizens League member by six masked men. Fearing a riot, police tear-gassed crowds, and one man was killed by police.

At the Topaz Relocation Center, a man was shot and killed by military police for going too close to the perimeter. Two months later, a couple was shot at for the same reason.

In 1943, a riot broke out at Tule Lake following an accidental death. Tear gas was dispersed, and martial law declared until agreements were reached.

Fred Korematsu

In 1942, 23-year-old Fred Korematsu was arrested for refusing to relocate to a Japanese internment camp. His case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where his attorneys argued in Korematsu v. United States that Executive Order 9066 violated the Fifth Amendment. He lost the case, but he went on to become a civil rights activist and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998. With the creation of California's Fred Korematsu Day, the U.S. saw its first U.S. holiday named for an Asian American. But it would take another Supreme Court decision to halt the internment of Japanese Americans

Mitsuye Endo

The internment camps ended in 1945 following a Supreme Court decision.

In Endo v. the United States, it was ruled that the War Relocation Authority "has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure."

The case was brought on behalf of Mitsuye Endo, the daughter of Japanese immigrants from Sacramento, CA. After filing a habeas corpus petition, the government offered to free her, but Endo refused, wanting her case to address the entire issue of Japanese internment.

Two years later, the Supreme Court made the decision, but gave Roosevelt the chance to begin camp closures before the announcement. One day after Roosevelt made his announcement, the Supreme Court revealed its decision.

Reparations

The last Japanese internment camp closed in March 1946. President Gerald Ford officially repealed Executive Order 9066 in 1976, and in 1988 Congress issued a formal apology and passed the Civil Liberties Act awarding $20,000 each to over 80,000 Japanese Americans as reparations for their treatment.

SOURCES

Japanese Relocation During World War II. National Archives.
Confinement and Ethnicity: An Overview of World War II Japanese American Relocation Sites. J. Burton, M. Farrell, F. Lord and R. Lord.
Lordsburg Internment POW Camp. Historical Society of New Mexico.
Smithsonian Institute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
asian american and pacific islander history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Japanese internment camps were established during World War II by President Franklin Roosevelt through his Executive Order 9066. From 1942 to 1945, it was the policy of the U.S. government that people of Japanese descent would be interred in isolated camps.

# data[].attributes.body
this showed that one thing that can cause conflict is disagreement. This article showed disagreement because some states wanted to keep slaves and some didn´t.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Causes of the Civil War

In the mid-19th century, while the United States was experiencing an era of tremendous growth, a fundamental economic difference existed between the country's northern and southern regions.

In the North, manufacturing and industry was well established, and agriculture was mostly limited to small-scale farms, while the South's economy was based on a system of large-scale farming that depended on the labor of Black enslaved people to grow certain crops, especially cotton and tobacco.

Growing abolitionist sentiment in the North after the 1830s and northern opposition to slavery's extension into the new western territories led many southerners to fear that the existence of slavery in America -and thus the backbone of their economy-was in danger.

Did you know? Confederate General Thomas Jonathan Jackson earned his famous nickname, "Stonewall," from his steadfast defensive efforts in the First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas). At Chancellorsville, Jackson was shot by one of his own men, who mistook him for Union cavalry. His arm was amputated, and he died from pneumonia eight days later.

In 1854, the U.S. Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which essentially opened all new territories to slavery by asserting the rule of popular sovereignty over congressional edict. Pro- and anti-slavery forces struggled violently in " Bleeding Kansas," while opposition to the act in the North led to the formation of the Republican Party, a new political entity based on the principle of opposing slavery's extension into the western territories. After the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case (1857) confirmed the legality of slavery in the territories, the abolitionist John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry in 1859 convinced more and more southerners that their northern neighbors were bent on the destruction of the "peculiar institution" that sustained them. Abraham Lincoln 's election in November 1860 was the final straw, and within three months seven southern states-South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas-had seceded from the United States.

Outbreak of the Civil War (1861)

Even as Lincoln took office in March 1861, Confederate forces threatened the federal-held Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. On April 12, after Lincoln ordered a fleet to resupply Sumter, Confederate artillery fired the first shots of the Civil War. Sumter's commander, Major Robert Anderson, surrendered after less than two days of bombardment, leaving the fort in the hands of Confederate forces under Pierre G.T. Beauregard. Four more southern states-Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee-joined the Confederacy after Fort Sumter. Border slave states like Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland did not secede, but there was much Confederate sympathy among their citizens.

Though on the surface the Civil War may have seemed a lopsided conflict, with the 23 states of the Union enjoying an enormous advantage in population, manufacturing (including arms production) and railroad construction, the Confederates had a strong military tradition, along with some of the best soldiers and commanders in the nation. They also had a cause they believed in: preserving their long-held traditions and institutions, chief among these being slavery.

In the First Battle of Bull Run (known in the South as First Manassas) on July 21, 1861, 35,000 Confederate soldiers under the command of Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson forced a greater number of Union forces (or Federals) to retreat towards Washington, D.C., dashing any hopes of a quick Union victory and leading Lincoln to call for 500,000 more recruits. In fact, both sides' initial call for troops had to be widened after it became clear that the war would not be a limited or short conflict.

The Civil War in Virginia (1862)

George B. McClellan-who replaced the aging General Winfield Scott as supreme commander of the Union Army after the first months of the war-was beloved by his troops, but his reluctance to advance frustrated Lincoln. In the spring of 1862, McClellan finally led his Army of the Potomac up the peninsula between the York and James Rivers, capturing Yorktown on May 4. The combined forces of Robert E. Lee and Jackson successfully drove back McClellan's army in the Seven Days' Battles (June 25-July 1), and a cautious McClellan called for yet more reinforcements in order to move against Richmond. Lincoln refused, and instead withdrew the Army of the Potomac to Washington. By mid-1862, McClellan had been replaced as Union general-in-chief by Henry W. Halleck, though he remained in command of the Army of the Potomac.

Lee then moved his troops northwards and split his men, sending Jackson to meet Pope's forces near Manassas, while Lee himself moved separately with the second half of the army. On August 29, Union troops led by John Pope struck Jackson's forces in the Second Battle of Bull Run (Second Manassas). The next day, Lee hit the Federal left flank with a massive assault, driving Pope's men back towards Washington. On the heels of his victory at Manassas, Lee began the first Confederate invasion of the North. Despite contradictory orders from Lincoln and Halleck, McClellan was able to reorganize his army and strike at Lee on September 14 in Maryland, driving the Confederates back to a defensive position along Antietam Creek, near Sharpsburg.

On September 17, the Army of the Potomac hit Lee's forces (reinforced by Jackson's) in what became the war's bloodiest single day of fighting. Total casualties at the Battle of Antietam (also known as the Battle of Sharpsburg) numbered 12,410 of some 69,000 troops on the Union side, and 13,724 of around 52,000 for the Confederates. The Union victory at Antietam would prove decisive, as it halted the Confederate advance in Maryland and forced Lee to retreat into Virginia. Still, McClellan's failure to pursue his advantage earned him the scorn of Lincoln and Halleck, who removed him from command in favor of Ambrose E. Burnside. Burnside's assault on Lee's troops near Fredericksburg on December 13 ended in heavy Union casualties and a Confederate victory; he was promptly replaced by Joseph "Fighting Joe" Hooker, and both armies settled into winter quarters across the Rappahannock River from each other.

After the Emancipation Proclamation (1863-4)

Lincoln had used the occasion of the Union victory at Antietam to issue a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all enslaved people in the rebellious states after January 1, 1863. He justified his decision as a wartime measure, and did not go so far as to free the enslaved people in the border states loyal to the Union. Still, the Emancipation Proclamation deprived the Confederacy of the bulk of its labor forces and put international public opinion strongly on the Union side. Some 186,000 Black Civil War soldiers would join the Union Army by the time the war ended in 1865, and 38,000 lost their lives.

In the spring of 1863, Hooker's plans for a Union offensive were thwarted by a surprise attack by the bulk of Lee's forces on May 1, whereupon Hooker pulled his men back to Chancellorsville. The Confederates gained a costly victory in the Battle of Chancellorsville, suffering 13,000 casualties (around 22 percent of their troops); the Union lost 17,000 men (15 percent). Lee launched another invasion of the North in June, attacking Union forces commanded by General George Meade on July 1 near Gettysburg, in southern Pennsylvania. Over three days of fierce fighting, the Confederates were unable to push through the Union center, and suffered casualties of close to 60 percent.

Meade failed to counterattack, however, and Lee's remaining forces were able to escape into Virginia, ending the last Confederate invasion of the North. Also in July 1863, Union forces under Ulysses S. Grant took Vicksburg (Mississippi) in the Siege of Vicksburg, a victory that would prove to be the turning point of the war in the western theater. After a Confederate victory at Chickamauga Creek, Georgia, just south of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in September, Lincoln expanded Grant's command, and he led a reinforced Federal army (including two corps from the Army of the Potomac) to victory in the Battle of Chattanooga in late November.

Toward a Union Victory (1864-65)

In March 1864, Lincoln put Grant in supreme command of the Union armies, replacing Halleck. Leaving William Tecumseh Sherman in control in the West, Grant headed to Washington, where he led the Army of the Potomac towards Lee's troops in northern Virginia. Despite heavy Union casualties in the Battle of the Wilderness and at Spotsylvania (both May 1864), at Cold Harbor (early June) and the key rail center of Petersburg (June), Grant pursued a strategy of attrition, putting Petersburg under siege for the next nine months.

Sherman outmaneuvered Confederate forces to take Atlanta by September, after which he and some 60,000 Union troops began the famous "March to the Sea," devastating Georgia on the way to capturing Savannah on December 21. Columbia and Charleston, South Carolina, fell to Sherman's men by mid-February, and Jefferson Davis belatedly handed over the supreme command to Lee, with the Confederate war effort on its last legs. Sherman pressed on through North Carolina, capturing Fayetteville, Bentonville, Goldsboro and Raleigh by mid-April.

Meanwhile, exhausted by the Union siege of Petersburg and Richmond, Lee's forces made a last attempt at resistance, attacking and captured the Federal-controlled Fort Stedman on March 25. An immediate counterattack reversed the victory, however, and on the night of April 2-3 Lee's forces evacuated Richmond. For most of the next week, Grant and Meade pursued the Confederates along the Appomattox River, finally exhausting their possibilities for escape. Grant accepted Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 9. On the eve of victory, the Union lost its great leader: The actor and Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Lincoln at Ford's Theatre in Washington on April 14. Sherman received Johnston's surrender at Durham Station, North Carolina on April 26, effectively ending the Civil War.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Civil War - Causes, Dates & Battles | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Civil War in the United States began in 1861, after decades of simmering tensions between northern and southern states over slavery, states' rights and westward expansion. Eleven southern states seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy. Ultimately more than 620,000 Americans' lives were lost in the four-year war that ended in a Confederate defeat.

# data[].attributes.headline
this article taught me that when people violate rules it can cause other people not like them and conflict may rise.

# data[].attributes.subject
this article taught me that when people violate rules it can cause other people not like them and conflict may rise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Causes and Consequences of the Second World War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Between the Causes and consequences of World War II We find the violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent invasion of Poland by fascist Germany, as well as its subsequent overthrow and the creation of the United Nations.

# data[].attributes.body
This article showed me that while Jealousy can bring people's relationship apart. It can also bring the relationship closer and deeper because they know each other's perspective on things. This relates to my questions, because conflict and dislikes happen when we we are jealous of others or we envy others for the things they have or for the things they are.

This also relates to the fact that people treat others differently because of jealousy and frustration.
- James F.

# data[].attributes.headline
This article taught me that people will fight to keep what they want, to have money and power. What I learned about my essential question is that different opinion equals conflict and hatred.

# data[].attributes.subject
This article taught me that people will fight to keep what they want, to have money and power. What I learned about my essential question is that different opinion equals conflict and hatred.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Causes of the Civil War

In the mid-19th century, while the United States was experiencing an era of tremendous growth, a fundamental economic difference existed between the country's northern and southern regions.

In the North, manufacturing and industry was well established, and agriculture was mostly limited to small-scale farms, while the South's economy was based on a system of large-scale farming that depended on the labor of Black enslaved people to grow certain crops, especially cotton and tobacco.

Growing abolitionist sentiment in the North after the 1830s and northern opposition to slavery's extension into the new western territories led many southerners to fear that the existence of slavery in America -and thus the backbone of their economy-was in danger.

Did you know? Confederate General Thomas Jonathan Jackson earned his famous nickname, "Stonewall," from his steadfast defensive efforts in the First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas). At Chancellorsville, Jackson was shot by one of his own men, who mistook him for Union cavalry. His arm was amputated, and he died from pneumonia eight days later.

In 1854, the U.S. Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which essentially opened all new territories to slavery by asserting the rule of popular sovereignty over congressional edict. Pro- and anti-slavery forces struggled violently in " Bleeding Kansas," while opposition to the act in the North led to the formation of the Republican Party, a new political entity based on the principle of opposing slavery's extension into the western territories. After the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case (1857) confirmed the legality of slavery in the territories, the abolitionist John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry in 1859 convinced more and more southerners that their northern neighbors were bent on the destruction of the "peculiar institution" that sustained them. Abraham Lincoln 's election in November 1860 was the final straw, and within three months seven southern states-South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas-had seceded from the United States.

Outbreak of the Civil War (1861)

Even as Lincoln took office in March 1861, Confederate forces threatened the federal-held Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. On April 12, after Lincoln ordered a fleet to resupply Sumter, Confederate artillery fired the first shots of the Civil War. Sumter's commander, Major Robert Anderson, surrendered after less than two days of bombardment, leaving the fort in the hands of Confederate forces under Pierre G.T. Beauregard. Four more southern states-Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee-joined the Confederacy after Fort Sumter. Border slave states like Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland did not secede, but there was much Confederate sympathy among their citizens.

Though on the surface the Civil War may have seemed a lopsided conflict, with the 23 states of the Union enjoying an enormous advantage in population, manufacturing (including arms production) and railroad construction, the Confederates had a strong military tradition, along with some of the best soldiers and commanders in the nation. They also had a cause they believed in: preserving their long-held traditions and institutions, chief among these being slavery.

In the First Battle of Bull Run (known in the South as First Manassas) on July 21, 1861, 35,000 Confederate soldiers under the command of Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson forced a greater number of Union forces (or Federals) to retreat towards Washington, D.C., dashing any hopes of a quick Union victory and leading Lincoln to call for 500,000 more recruits. In fact, both sides' initial call for troops had to be widened after it became clear that the war would not be a limited or short conflict.

The Civil War in Virginia (1862)

George B. McClellan-who replaced the aging General Winfield Scott as supreme commander of the Union Army after the first months of the war-was beloved by his troops, but his reluctance to advance frustrated Lincoln. In the spring of 1862, McClellan finally led his Army of the Potomac up the peninsula between the York and James Rivers, capturing Yorktown on May 4. The combined forces of Robert E. Lee and Jackson successfully drove back McClellan's army in the Seven Days' Battles (June 25-July 1), and a cautious McClellan called for yet more reinforcements in order to move against Richmond. Lincoln refused, and instead withdrew the Army of the Potomac to Washington. By mid-1862, McClellan had been replaced as Union general-in-chief by Henry W. Halleck, though he remained in command of the Army of the Potomac.

Lee then moved his troops northwards and split his men, sending Jackson to meet Pope's forces near Manassas, while Lee himself moved separately with the second half of the army. On August 29, Union troops led by John Pope struck Jackson's forces in the Second Battle of Bull Run (Second Manassas). The next day, Lee hit the Federal left flank with a massive assault, driving Pope's men back towards Washington. On the heels of his victory at Manassas, Lee began the first Confederate invasion of the North. Despite contradictory orders from Lincoln and Halleck, McClellan was able to reorganize his army and strike at Lee on September 14 in Maryland, driving the Confederates back to a defensive position along Antietam Creek, near Sharpsburg.

On September 17, the Army of the Potomac hit Lee's forces (reinforced by Jackson's) in what became the war's bloodiest single day of fighting. Total casualties at the Battle of Antietam (also known as the Battle of Sharpsburg) numbered 12,410 of some 69,000 troops on the Union side, and 13,724 of around 52,000 for the Confederates. The Union victory at Antietam would prove decisive, as it halted the Confederate advance in Maryland and forced Lee to retreat into Virginia. Still, McClellan's failure to pursue his advantage earned him the scorn of Lincoln and Halleck, who removed him from command in favor of Ambrose E. Burnside. Burnside's assault on Lee's troops near Fredericksburg on December 13 ended in heavy Union casualties and a Confederate victory; he was promptly replaced by Joseph "Fighting Joe" Hooker, and both armies settled into winter quarters across the Rappahannock River from each other.

After the Emancipation Proclamation (1863-4)

Lincoln had used the occasion of the Union victory at Antietam to issue a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all enslaved people in the rebellious states after January 1, 1863. He justified his decision as a wartime measure, and did not go so far as to free the enslaved people in the border states loyal to the Union. Still, the Emancipation Proclamation deprived the Confederacy of the bulk of its labor forces and put international public opinion strongly on the Union side. Some 186,000 Black Civil War soldiers would join the Union Army by the time the war ended in 1865, and 38,000 lost their lives.

In the spring of 1863, Hooker's plans for a Union offensive were thwarted by a surprise attack by the bulk of Lee's forces on May 1, whereupon Hooker pulled his men back to Chancellorsville. The Confederates gained a costly victory in the Battle of Chancellorsville, suffering 13,000 casualties (around 22 percent of their troops); the Union lost 17,000 men (15 percent). Lee launched another invasion of the North in June, attacking Union forces commanded by General George Meade on July 1 near Gettysburg, in southern Pennsylvania. Over three days of fierce fighting, the Confederates were unable to push through the Union center, and suffered casualties of close to 60 percent.

Meade failed to counterattack, however, and Lee's remaining forces were able to escape into Virginia, ending the last Confederate invasion of the North. Also in July 1863, Union forces under Ulysses S. Grant took Vicksburg (Mississippi) in the Siege of Vicksburg, a victory that would prove to be the turning point of the war in the western theater. After a Confederate victory at Chickamauga Creek, Georgia, just south of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in September, Lincoln expanded Grant's command, and he led a reinforced Federal army (including two corps from the Army of the Potomac) to victory in the Battle of Chattanooga in late November.

Toward a Union Victory (1864-65)

In March 1864, Lincoln put Grant in supreme command of the Union armies, replacing Halleck. Leaving William Tecumseh Sherman in control in the West, Grant headed to Washington, where he led the Army of the Potomac towards Lee's troops in northern Virginia. Despite heavy Union casualties in the Battle of the Wilderness and at Spotsylvania (both May 1864), at Cold Harbor (early June) and the key rail center of Petersburg (June), Grant pursued a strategy of attrition, putting Petersburg under siege for the next nine months.

Sherman outmaneuvered Confederate forces to take Atlanta by September, after which he and some 60,000 Union troops began the famous "March to the Sea," devastating Georgia on the way to capturing Savannah on December 21. Columbia and Charleston, South Carolina, fell to Sherman's men by mid-February, and Jefferson Davis belatedly handed over the supreme command to Lee, with the Confederate war effort on its last legs. Sherman pressed on through North Carolina, capturing Fayetteville, Bentonville, Goldsboro and Raleigh by mid-April.

Meanwhile, exhausted by the Union siege of Petersburg and Richmond, Lee's forces made a last attempt at resistance, attacking and captured the Federal-controlled Fort Stedman on March 25. An immediate counterattack reversed the victory, however, and on the night of April 2-3 Lee's forces evacuated Richmond. For most of the next week, Grant and Meade pursued the Confederates along the Appomattox River, finally exhausting their possibilities for escape. Grant accepted Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 9. On the eve of victory, the Union lost its great leader: The actor and Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Lincoln at Ford's Theatre in Washington on April 14. Sherman received Johnston's surrender at Durham Station, North Carolina on April 26, effectively ending the Civil War.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Civil War - Causes, Dates & Battles | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Civil War in the United States began in 1861, after decades of simmering tensions between northern and southern states over slavery, states' rights and westward expansion. Eleven southern states seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy. Ultimately more than 620,000 Americans' lives were lost in the four-year war that ended in a Confederate defeat.

# data[].attributes.body
This article taught me many things. It taught me how to ask better questions, and how to be more approachable. My question was, "What causes conflict or dislike?"  and this article informed me a lot about this question. I learned that it is not questions that causes conflict, but the answers. There are techniques to asking questions to cause less conflict, for example if you are more curious than furious it will help you have less conflict in your conversations. - Autumn Brueshaber

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them."

Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

If we're looking for solutions to this growing problem of polarization, we might want to start by asking each other more questions.

As I researched the power of questioning for The Book of Beautiful Questions, I talked to experts in various fields who tended to agree that by asking thoughtful, curious questions of another person, we can quickly build trust and rapport-even with people who might see the world differently than we do.

When questions are formulated and asked the right way, they can do a few key things to draw people closer together, says relationship researcher Arthur Aron. "First, just by asking questions, you're showing that you care about the other person," Aron explains. "Second, the question encourages that person to reveal something about themselves. And then that creates an opportunity for you to respond to what they are revealing."

Over the past few decades, Aron has conducted experiments in which strangers are paired up and instructed to ask one another a series of questions-and he has found it to be a surprisingly effective relationship-building tool. This has even been true when the question-asking experiments were conducted among people who might be expected to have very different perspectives and attitudes. For example, Aron has paired up questioners of different races, and in another study, he instructed police officers and local citizens to ask questions of one another.

After sharing questions and answers, the participants tended to like and understand each other better. Beyond that, Aron also found that the questioning exercises generated positive feelings that extended to the overall group-thus, the person who shared questions with a police officer was then apt to like all police more, and likewise for those who exchanged questions with someone from another race.

Of course, in using questions to better connect with someone, what you ask and how you ask it is critical. Questions worded poorly or asked in the wrong tone can be off-putting or even confrontational. To quote the radio interviewer and expert questioner Krista Tippett: "It's hard to transcend a combative question. But it's hard to resist a generous question. We all have it in us to formulate questions that invite honesty, dignity, and revelation." I think of such inviting questions as "bridge questions"-because they can help us traverse the divide that separates us from others.

Building a Question Bridge

If you'd like to try building a question bridge that might help you reach out to someone you've been having trouble connecting with (be it a co-worker you tend to disagree with or an uncle with sharply different political views), here are few points to keep in mind:

* Begin by asking yourself a question. Why am I trying to cross this particular divide? It's usually a worthwhile and admirable thing to attempt-but just make sure you're doing it for the "right" reasons. Those might include: trying to repair or strengthen a personal relationship that's important to you; trying to promote civil discourse and greater understanding among people within your circle at work, among friends, or at home; or, it could be that you want to broaden your own thinking.

But if you're planning to cross that divide so you can convert someone on the other side to your point of view, forget about it. The evidence suggests you're unlikely to succeed (no matter how many facts and talking points you're armed with)-and you may end up doing more harm than good to the relationship.

* Decide, at the outset, that you're going to be driven by curiosity. And that your "guiding question," throughout this interaction, will be: W hat can I learn from this person who sees things differently than I do?

Not only does curiosity help open up your own thinking to new information, it also signals to the other person that you're coming to this exchange seeking to understand, rather than to attack or judge. You can signal your curiosity in simple ways: foremost by listening intently, but also by prefacing your own questions with phrases like, "I'm curious about something," or "I was wondering about this, and maybe you can help me understand..."

* As you begin, be careful about allowing your own views and assumptions to influence your questions. Particularly when discussing hot-button issues, it's easy to fall into the trap of asking loaded questions such as, How on earth could you believe such a thing? In order to move the conversation forward, you should be asking questions that are free of assumptions, judgments, and veiled criticism, says Jeremy Hay, co-founder of Spaceship Media, a group that organizes and hosts conversations between groups with opposing viewpoints.

One of Spaceship Media's most recent projects, "Guns: An American Conversation," brought together people who disagree on that controversial subject; the participants communicated with each other for a month via a moderated Facebook Group. The moderators coached and steered participants away from asking questions that contained "embedded assumptions." For example, one anti-gun participant initially wanted to ask gun owners in the group, What are you so afraid of?, but was then coached to reframe the question to: Can you tell me more about why you feel you need lots of guns?

* Once you've asked questions that respectfully solicit the other person's views and feelings, try to find some area(s) of agreement. This does not mean you have to back down from your own stance or beliefs. It isn't necessary to agree with someone else's overall position; the idea is to try to find some element of their belief that seems reasonable and understandable--"it could be their goals, intentions, concerns, emotions," says Josh Davis, senior director of research at the Institute for Personal Leadership.

You can use questions to help locate that common ground. James Ryan, dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Education, often relies on the question: Couldn't we at least agree that ___? (You can fill in that blank with anything that seems like a reasonable point both sides can accept). "Asking 'Couldn't we at least agree?' is a way to push back against polarization and extremism, because it is an invitation to find some areas of consensus," according to Ryan. He told me he uses the question "whenever there's an impasse." For example, during heated discussions with fellow educators about different teaching methods, Ryan may ask something like, Couldn't we at least agree that everyone in this room wants to improve education for our students? "It lowers the temperature and refocuses the conversation on what we agree on, instead of what we disagree on," Ryan says.

* Challenge your conversation partner to shift his/her thinking, just a little. And challenge yourself to do likewise. Here are two great questions that can help with that: After you've inquired about the other person's views and shared your own, try asking: Can you find anything in your position that gives you pause? Then follow that up with: Is there anything in my position that you are attracted to or find interesting? Be sure to then turn those two questions on yourself. This forces both of you to acknowledge flaws in your own argument and strengths in the other person's argument. (Hat tip to radio host Tippett, who featured a slightly different version of these two questions in her book, Becoming Wise).

* If all else fails, try this trick. Using a technique adapted from an area of study known as " motivational interviewing," ask your companion to rate something the/she disagrees with on a scale of one to ten. For example: On a scale of 1 to 10, how much of global climate change theory do you think is true? (1 = None of it is true; 10 = All of it is true).

Researchers have found that even when people are rating something they disagree with or don't like, they rarely pick the lowest number. They're more likely to cite a low-range number like two or three. In which case, you can follow up by asking: Why did you pick two or three, instead of the lowest number? To answer that question, the person is almost forced to come up with something positive about your position-which means they are beginning to articulate the other side of their own argument.

* Take it slow. don't expect to reach total agreement on anything quickly. "Science Guy" Bill Nye reminds us that we must be patient with those whose views differ from our own. "We tend to say, 'Look at the facts! Change your mind!' But it can take people a couple of years to change their mind." In the meantime, Nye suggests that "the way to overcome that is to say, 'We're all in this together-let's learn about this together.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them." Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

# data[].attributes.body
This article taught me that Opinions can cause conflict and hatred. I chose this article because I don't know a lot about Hitler and I think it would fit with the EQ. He lied his way to leadership. Promising things he couldn't do Which lead to hate and conflict.

# data[].attributes.body
This article taught me that opinions and perspective can cause hatred between people. When someone thinks they are the best and superior and right, and others think a different way, that can cause conflict between the two. Hitler thought he was right, that probably nothing could change his mind. Thinking you are superior to others can lead to conflict, because that is what Hitler thought, and we saw what he turned out to be. -Mason Perusse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Early Life

Adolf Hitler was born on April 20, 1889, in Braunau am Inn, a small Austrian town near the Austro-German frontier. After his father, Alois, retired as a state customs official, young Adolf spent most of his childhood in Linz, the capital of Upper Austria.

Not wanting to follow in his father's footsteps as a civil servant, he began struggling in secondary school and eventually dropped out. Alois died in 1903, and Adolf pursued his dream of being an artist, though he was rejected from Vienna's Academy of Fine Arts.

After his mother, Klara, died in 1908, Hitler moved to Vienna, where he pieced together a living painting scenery and monuments and selling the images. Lonely, isolated and a voracious reader, Hitler became interested in politics during his years in Vienna, and developed many of the ideas that would shape Nazi ideology.

Military Career of Adolf Hitler

In 1913, Hitler moved to Munich, in the German state of Bavaria. When World War I broke out the following summer, he successfully petitioned the Bavarian king to be allowed to volunteer in a reserve infantry regiment.

Deployed in October 1914 to Belgium, Hitler served throughout the Great War and won two decorations for bravery, including the rare Iron Cross First Class, which he wore to the end of his life.

Hitler was wounded twice during the conflict: He was hit in the leg during the Battle of the Somme in 1916, and temporarily blinded by a British gas attack near Ypres in 1918. A month later, he was recuperating in a hospital at Pasewalk, northeast of Berlin, when news arrived of the armistice and Germany's defeat in World War I.

Like many Germans, Hitler came to believe the country's devastating defeat could be attributed not to the Allies, but to insufficiently patriotic "traitors" at home-a myth that would undermine the post-war Weimar Republic and set the stage for Hitler's rise.

Nazi Party

After Hitler returned to Munich in late 1918, he joined the small German Workers' Party, which aimed to unite the interests of the working class with a strong German nationalism. His skilled oratory and charismatic energy helped propel him in the party's ranks, and in 1920 he left the army and took charge of its propaganda efforts.

In one of Hitler's strokes of propaganda genius, the newly renamed National Socialist German Workers Party, or Nazi Party, adopted a version of the swastika-an ancient sacred symbol of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism -as its emblem. Printed in a white circle on a red background, Hitler's swastika would take on terrifying symbolic power in the years to come.

By the end of 1921, Hitler led the growing Nazi Party, capitalizing on widespread discontent with the Weimar Republic and the punishing terms of the Versailles Treaty. Many dissatisfied former army officers in Munich would join the Nazis, notably Ernst Röhm, who recruited the "strong arm" squads-known as the Sturmabteilung (SA)-which Hitler used to protect party meetings and attack opponents.

Beer Hall Putsch

On the evening of November 8, 1923, members of the SA and others forced their way into a large beer hall where another right-wing leader was addressing the crowd. Wielding a revolver, Hitler proclaimed the beginning of a national revolution and led marchers to the center of Munich, where they got into a gun battle with police.

Hitler fled quickly, but he and other rebel leaders were later arrested. Even though it failed spectacularly, the Beer Hall Putsch established Hitler as a national figure, and (in the eyes of many) a hero of right-wing nationalism.

'Mein Kampf'

Tried for treason, Hitler was sentenced to five years in prison, but would serve only nine months in the relative comfort of Landsberg Castle. During this period, he began to dictate the book that would become " Mein Kampf" ("My Struggle"), the first volume of which was published in 1925.

In it, Hitler expanded on the nationalistic, anti-Semitic views he had begun to develop in Vienna in his early twenties, and laid out plans for the Germany-and the world-he sought to create when he came to power.

Hitler would finish the second volume of "Mein Kampf" after his release, while relaxing in the mountain village of Berchtesgaden. It sold modestly at first, but with Hitler's rise it became Germany's best-selling book after the Bible. By 1940, it had sold some 6 million copies there.

Hitler's second book, "The Zweites Buch," was written in 1928 and contained his thoughts on foreign policy. It was not published in his lifetime due to the poor initial sales of "Mein Kampf." The first English translations of "The Zweites Buch" did not appear until 1962 and was published under the title "Hitler's Secret Book."

Obsessed with race and the idea of ethnic "purity," Hitler saw a natural order that placed the so-called "Aryan race" at the top.

For him, the unity of the Volk (the German people) would find its truest incarnation not in democratic or parliamentary government, but in one supreme leader, or Führer.

"Mein Kampf" also addressed the need for Lebensraum (or living space): In order to fulfill its destiny, Germany should take over lands to the east that were now occupied by "inferior" Slavic peoples-including Austria, the Sudetenland (Czechoslovakia), Poland and Russia.

The Schutzstaffel (SS)

By the time Hitler left prison, economic recovery had restored some popular support for the Weimar Republic, and support for right-wing causes like Nazism appeared to be waning.

Over the next few years, Hitler laid low and worked on reorganizing and reshaping the Nazi Party. He established the Hitler Youth to organize youngsters, and created the Schutzstaffel (SS) as a more reliable alternative to the SA.

Members of the SS wore black uniforms and swore a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler. (After 1929, under the leadership of Heinrich Himmler, the SS would develop from a group of some 200 men into a force that would dominate Germany and terrorize the rest of occupied Europe during World War II.)

Eva Braun

Hitler spent much of his time at Berchtesgaden during these years, and his half-sister, Angela Raubal, and her two daughters often joined him. After Hitler became infatuated with his beautiful blonde niece, Geli Raubal, his possessive jealousy apparently led her to commit suicide in 1931.

Devastated by the loss, Hitler would consider Geli the only true love affair of his life. He soon began a long relationship with Eva Braun, a shop assistant from Munich, but refused to marry her.

The worldwide Great Depression that began in 1929 again threatened the stability of the Weimar Republic. Determined to achieve political power in order to affect his revolution, Hitler built up Nazi support among German conservatives, including army, business and industrial leaders.

The Third Reich

In 1932, Hitler ran against the war hero Paul von Hindenburg for president, and received 36.8 percent of the vote. With the government in chaos, three successive chancellors failed to maintain control, and in late January 1933 Hindenburg named the 43-year-old Hitler as chancellor, capping the stunning rise of an unlikely leader.

January 30, 1933 marked the birth of the Third Reich, or as the Nazis called it, the "Thousand-Year Reich" (after Hitler's boast that it would endure for a millennium).

Reichstag Fire

Though the Nazis never attained more than 37 percent of the vote at the height of their popularity in 1932, Hitler was able to grab absolute power in Germany largely due to divisions and inaction among the majority who opposed Nazism.

After a devastating fire at Germany's parliament building, the Reichstag, in February 1933-possibly the work of a Dutch communist, though later evidence suggested Nazis set the Reichstag fire themselves-Hitler had an excuse to step up the political oppression and violence against his opponents.

On March 23, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, giving full powers to Hitler and celebrating the union of National Socialism with the old German establishment (i.e., Hindenburg).

That July, the government passed a law stating that the Nazi Party "constitutes the only political party in Germany," and within months all non-Nazi parties, trade unions and other organizations had ceased to exist.

His autocratic power now secure within Germany, Hitler turned his eyes toward the rest of Europe.

In 1933, Germany was diplomatically isolated, with a weak military and hostile neighbors (France and Poland). In a famous speech in May 1933, Hitler struck a surprisingly conciliatory tone, claiming Germany supported disarmament and peace.

But behind this appeasement strategy, the domination and expansion of the Volk remained Hitler's overriding aim.

By early the following year, he had withdrawn Germany from the League of Nations and begun to militarize the nation in anticipation of his plans for territorial conquest.

Night of the Long Knives

On June 29, 1934, the infamous Night of the Long Knives, Hitler had Röhm, former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and hundreds of other problematic members of his own party murdered, in particular troublesome members of the SA.

When the 86-year-old Hindenburg died on August 2, military leaders agreed to combine the presidency and chancellorship into one position, meaning Hitler would command all the armed forces of the Reich.

Persecution of Jews

On September 15, 1935, passage of the Nuremberg Laws deprived Jews of German citizenship, and barred them from marrying or having relations with persons of "German or related blood."

Though the Nazis attempted to downplay its persecution of Jews in order to placate the international community during the 1936 Berlin Olympics (in which German-Jewish athletes were not allowed to compete), additional decrees over the next few years disenfranchised Jews and took away their political and civil rights.

In addition to its pervasive anti-Semitism, Hitler's government also sought to establish the cultural dominance of Nazism by burning books, forcing newspapers out of business, using radio and movies for propaganda purposes and forcing teachers throughout Germany's educational system to join the party.

Much of the Nazi persecution of Jews and other targets occurred at the hands of the Geheime Staatspolizei (GESTAPO), or Secret State Police, an arm of the SS that expanded during this period.

Outbreak of World War II

In March 1936, against the advice of his generals, Hitler ordered German troops to reoccupy the demilitarized left bank of the Rhine.

Over the next two years, Germany concluded alliances with Italy and Japan, annexed Austria and moved against Czechoslovakia-all essentially without resistance from Great Britain, France or the rest of the international community.

Once he confirmed the alliance with Italy in the so-called "Pact of Steel" in May 1939, Hitler then signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. On September 1, 1939, Nazi troops invaded Poland, finally prompting Britain and France to declare war on Germany.

Blitzkrieg

After ordering the occupation of Norway and Denmark in April 1940, Hitler adopted a plan proposed by one of his generals to attack France through the Ardennes Forest. The blitzkrieg ("lightning war") attack began on May 10; Holland quickly surrendered, followed by Belgium.

German troops made it all the way to the English Channel, forcing British and French forces to evacuate en masse from Dunkirk in late May. On June 22, France was forced to sign an armistice with Germany.

Hitler had hoped to force Britain to seek peace as well, but when that failed he went ahead with his attacks on that country, followed by an invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor that December, the United States declared war on Japan, and Germany's alliance with Japan demanded that Hitler declare war on the United States as well.

At that point in the conflict, Hitler shifted his central strategy to focus on breaking the alliance of his main opponents (Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union) by forcing one of them to make peace with him.

Concentration Camps

Beginning in 1933, the SS had operated a network of concentration camps, including a notorious camp at Dachau, near Munich, to hold Jews and other targets of the Nazi regime.

After war broke out, the Nazis shifted from expelling Jews from German-controlled territories to exterminating them. Einsatzgruppen, or mobile death squads, executed entire Jewish communities during the Soviet invasion, while the existing concentration-camp network expanded to include death camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau in occupied Poland.

In addition to forced labor and mass execution, certain Jews at Auschwitz were targeted as the subjects of horrific medical experiments carried out by eugenicist Josef Mengele, known as the "Angel of Death." Mengele's experiments focused on twins and exposed 3,000 child prisoners to disease, disfigurement and torture under the guise of medical research.

Though the Nazis also imprisoned and killed Catholics, homosexuals, political dissidents, Roma (gypsies) and the disabled, above all they targeted Jews-some 6 million of whom were killed in German-occupied Europe by war's end.

End of World War II

With defeats at El-Alamein and Stalingrad, as well as the landing of U.S. troops in North Africa by the end of 1942, the tide of the war turned against Germany.

As the conflict continued, Hitler became increasingly unwell, isolated and dependent on medications administered by his personal physician.

Several attempts were made on his life, including one that came close to succeeding in July 1944, when Col. Claus von Stauffenberg planted a bomb that exploded during a conference at Hitler's headquarters in East Prussia.

Within a few months of the successful Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944, the Allies had begun liberating cities across Europe. That December, Hitler attempted to direct another offensive through the Ardennes, trying to split British and American forces.

But after January 1945, he holed up in a bunker beneath the Chancellery in Berlin. With Soviet forces closing in, Hitler made plans for a last-ditch resistance before finally abandoning that plan.

How Did Adolf Hitler Die?

At midnight on the night of April 28-29, Hitler married Eva Braun in the Berlin bunker. After dictating his political testament, Hitler shot himself in his suite on April 30; Braun took poison. Their bodies were burned according to Hitler's instructions.

With Soviet troops occupying Berlin, Germany surrendered unconditionally on all fronts on May 7, 1945, bringing the war in Europe to a close.

In the end, Hitler's planned "Thousand-Year Reich" lasted just over 12 years, but wreaked unfathomable destruction and devastation during that time, forever transforming the history of Germany, Europe and the world.

Sources

William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
iWonder - Adolf Hitler: Man and Monster, BBC.
The Holocaust: A Learning Site for Students, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adolf Hiter: Rise to Power, Impact & Death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adolf Hitler was leader of the Nazi Party who rose to become dictator of Germany. Hitler used his power to orchestrate the deaths of 6 million Jews and millions of others during World War II.

# data[].attributes.body
After WWI Germany had been economically crippled and wanted revenge, so Germany was mad at the world for destroying their country's economy, so they fought them. And the other countrys of the world didnt like Germany because Germany had tried to take over the world.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read this article because I didn't see anyone else chose this article. I also chose it because I don't know the full story of Adolf Hitler and I wanted to know more about what caused this tragedy. Even in school you can see a documentary and still not know the whole story fully. I think the article teached me that your not born with hatred and dislike and that there is always a background part to it. What I learned about my essential question is that there are many ways to start hate and dislike. But my question is why do we bring it out on people, objects, internet? Overall I have learned a lot about Adolf Hitler and my essential question.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Early Life

Adolf Hitler was born on April 20, 1889, in Braunau am Inn, a small Austrian town near the Austro-German frontier. After his father, Alois, retired as a state customs official, young Adolf spent most of his childhood in Linz, the capital of Upper Austria.

Not wanting to follow in his father's footsteps as a civil servant, he began struggling in secondary school and eventually dropped out. Alois died in 1903, and Adolf pursued his dream of being an artist, though he was rejected from Vienna's Academy of Fine Arts.

After his mother, Klara, died in 1908, Hitler moved to Vienna, where he pieced together a living painting scenery and monuments and selling the images. Lonely, isolated and a voracious reader, Hitler became interested in politics during his years in Vienna, and developed many of the ideas that would shape Nazi ideology.

Military Career of Adolf Hitler

In 1913, Hitler moved to Munich, in the German state of Bavaria. When World War I broke out the following summer, he successfully petitioned the Bavarian king to be allowed to volunteer in a reserve infantry regiment.

Deployed in October 1914 to Belgium, Hitler served throughout the Great War and won two decorations for bravery, including the rare Iron Cross First Class, which he wore to the end of his life.

Hitler was wounded twice during the conflict: He was hit in the leg during the Battle of the Somme in 1916, and temporarily blinded by a British gas attack near Ypres in 1918. A month later, he was recuperating in a hospital at Pasewalk, northeast of Berlin, when news arrived of the armistice and Germany's defeat in World War I.

Like many Germans, Hitler came to believe the country's devastating defeat could be attributed not to the Allies, but to insufficiently patriotic "traitors" at home-a myth that would undermine the post-war Weimar Republic and set the stage for Hitler's rise.

Nazi Party

After Hitler returned to Munich in late 1918, he joined the small German Workers' Party, which aimed to unite the interests of the working class with a strong German nationalism. His skilled oratory and charismatic energy helped propel him in the party's ranks, and in 1920 he left the army and took charge of its propaganda efforts.

In one of Hitler's strokes of propaganda genius, the newly renamed National Socialist German Workers Party, or Nazi Party, adopted a version of the swastika-an ancient sacred symbol of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism -as its emblem. Printed in a white circle on a red background, Hitler's swastika would take on terrifying symbolic power in the years to come.

By the end of 1921, Hitler led the growing Nazi Party, capitalizing on widespread discontent with the Weimar Republic and the punishing terms of the Versailles Treaty. Many dissatisfied former army officers in Munich would join the Nazis, notably Ernst Röhm, who recruited the "strong arm" squads-known as the Sturmabteilung (SA)-which Hitler used to protect party meetings and attack opponents.

Beer Hall Putsch

On the evening of November 8, 1923, members of the SA and others forced their way into a large beer hall where another right-wing leader was addressing the crowd. Wielding a revolver, Hitler proclaimed the beginning of a national revolution and led marchers to the center of Munich, where they got into a gun battle with police.

Hitler fled quickly, but he and other rebel leaders were later arrested. Even though it failed spectacularly, the Beer Hall Putsch established Hitler as a national figure, and (in the eyes of many) a hero of right-wing nationalism.

'Mein Kampf'

Tried for treason, Hitler was sentenced to five years in prison, but would serve only nine months in the relative comfort of Landsberg Castle. During this period, he began to dictate the book that would become " Mein Kampf" ("My Struggle"), the first volume of which was published in 1925.

In it, Hitler expanded on the nationalistic, anti-Semitic views he had begun to develop in Vienna in his early twenties, and laid out plans for the Germany-and the world-he sought to create when he came to power.

Hitler would finish the second volume of "Mein Kampf" after his release, while relaxing in the mountain village of Berchtesgaden. It sold modestly at first, but with Hitler's rise it became Germany's best-selling book after the Bible. By 1940, it had sold some 6 million copies there.

Hitler's second book, "The Zweites Buch," was written in 1928 and contained his thoughts on foreign policy. It was not published in his lifetime due to the poor initial sales of "Mein Kampf." The first English translations of "The Zweites Buch" did not appear until 1962 and was published under the title "Hitler's Secret Book."

Obsessed with race and the idea of ethnic "purity," Hitler saw a natural order that placed the so-called "Aryan race" at the top.

For him, the unity of the Volk (the German people) would find its truest incarnation not in democratic or parliamentary government, but in one supreme leader, or Führer.

"Mein Kampf" also addressed the need for Lebensraum (or living space): In order to fulfill its destiny, Germany should take over lands to the east that were now occupied by "inferior" Slavic peoples-including Austria, the Sudetenland (Czechoslovakia), Poland and Russia.

The Schutzstaffel (SS)

By the time Hitler left prison, economic recovery had restored some popular support for the Weimar Republic, and support for right-wing causes like Nazism appeared to be waning.

Over the next few years, Hitler laid low and worked on reorganizing and reshaping the Nazi Party. He established the Hitler Youth to organize youngsters, and created the Schutzstaffel (SS) as a more reliable alternative to the SA.

Members of the SS wore black uniforms and swore a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler. (After 1929, under the leadership of Heinrich Himmler, the SS would develop from a group of some 200 men into a force that would dominate Germany and terrorize the rest of occupied Europe during World War II.)

Eva Braun

Hitler spent much of his time at Berchtesgaden during these years, and his half-sister, Angela Raubal, and her two daughters often joined him. After Hitler became infatuated with his beautiful blonde niece, Geli Raubal, his possessive jealousy apparently led her to commit suicide in 1931.

Devastated by the loss, Hitler would consider Geli the only true love affair of his life. He soon began a long relationship with Eva Braun, a shop assistant from Munich, but refused to marry her.

The worldwide Great Depression that began in 1929 again threatened the stability of the Weimar Republic. Determined to achieve political power in order to affect his revolution, Hitler built up Nazi support among German conservatives, including army, business and industrial leaders.

The Third Reich

In 1932, Hitler ran against the war hero Paul von Hindenburg for president, and received 36.8 percent of the vote. With the government in chaos, three successive chancellors failed to maintain control, and in late January 1933 Hindenburg named the 43-year-old Hitler as chancellor, capping the stunning rise of an unlikely leader.

January 30, 1933 marked the birth of the Third Reich, or as the Nazis called it, the "Thousand-Year Reich" (after Hitler's boast that it would endure for a millennium).

Reichstag Fire

Though the Nazis never attained more than 37 percent of the vote at the height of their popularity in 1932, Hitler was able to grab absolute power in Germany largely due to divisions and inaction among the majority who opposed Nazism.

After a devastating fire at Germany's parliament building, the Reichstag, in February 1933-possibly the work of a Dutch communist, though later evidence suggested Nazis set the Reichstag fire themselves-Hitler had an excuse to step up the political oppression and violence against his opponents.

On March 23, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, giving full powers to Hitler and celebrating the union of National Socialism with the old German establishment (i.e., Hindenburg).

That July, the government passed a law stating that the Nazi Party "constitutes the only political party in Germany," and within months all non-Nazi parties, trade unions and other organizations had ceased to exist.

His autocratic power now secure within Germany, Hitler turned his eyes toward the rest of Europe.

In 1933, Germany was diplomatically isolated, with a weak military and hostile neighbors (France and Poland). In a famous speech in May 1933, Hitler struck a surprisingly conciliatory tone, claiming Germany supported disarmament and peace.

But behind this appeasement strategy, the domination and expansion of the Volk remained Hitler's overriding aim.

By early the following year, he had withdrawn Germany from the League of Nations and begun to militarize the nation in anticipation of his plans for territorial conquest.

Night of the Long Knives

On June 29, 1934, the infamous Night of the Long Knives, Hitler had Röhm, former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and hundreds of other problematic members of his own party murdered, in particular troublesome members of the SA.

When the 86-year-old Hindenburg died on August 2, military leaders agreed to combine the presidency and chancellorship into one position, meaning Hitler would command all the armed forces of the Reich.

Persecution of Jews

On September 15, 1935, passage of the Nuremberg Laws deprived Jews of German citizenship, and barred them from marrying or having relations with persons of "German or related blood."

Though the Nazis attempted to downplay its persecution of Jews in order to placate the international community during the 1936 Berlin Olympics (in which German-Jewish athletes were not allowed to compete), additional decrees over the next few years disenfranchised Jews and took away their political and civil rights.

In addition to its pervasive anti-Semitism, Hitler's government also sought to establish the cultural dominance of Nazism by burning books, forcing newspapers out of business, using radio and movies for propaganda purposes and forcing teachers throughout Germany's educational system to join the party.

Much of the Nazi persecution of Jews and other targets occurred at the hands of the Geheime Staatspolizei (GESTAPO), or Secret State Police, an arm of the SS that expanded during this period.

Outbreak of World War II

In March 1936, against the advice of his generals, Hitler ordered German troops to reoccupy the demilitarized left bank of the Rhine.

Over the next two years, Germany concluded alliances with Italy and Japan, annexed Austria and moved against Czechoslovakia-all essentially without resistance from Great Britain, France or the rest of the international community.

Once he confirmed the alliance with Italy in the so-called "Pact of Steel" in May 1939, Hitler then signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. On September 1, 1939, Nazi troops invaded Poland, finally prompting Britain and France to declare war on Germany.

Blitzkrieg

After ordering the occupation of Norway and Denmark in April 1940, Hitler adopted a plan proposed by one of his generals to attack France through the Ardennes Forest. The blitzkrieg ("lightning war") attack began on May 10; Holland quickly surrendered, followed by Belgium.

German troops made it all the way to the English Channel, forcing British and French forces to evacuate en masse from Dunkirk in late May. On June 22, France was forced to sign an armistice with Germany.

Hitler had hoped to force Britain to seek peace as well, but when that failed he went ahead with his attacks on that country, followed by an invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor that December, the United States declared war on Japan, and Germany's alliance with Japan demanded that Hitler declare war on the United States as well.

At that point in the conflict, Hitler shifted his central strategy to focus on breaking the alliance of his main opponents (Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union) by forcing one of them to make peace with him.

Concentration Camps

Beginning in 1933, the SS had operated a network of concentration camps, including a notorious camp at Dachau, near Munich, to hold Jews and other targets of the Nazi regime.

After war broke out, the Nazis shifted from expelling Jews from German-controlled territories to exterminating them. Einsatzgruppen, or mobile death squads, executed entire Jewish communities during the Soviet invasion, while the existing concentration-camp network expanded to include death camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau in occupied Poland.

In addition to forced labor and mass execution, certain Jews at Auschwitz were targeted as the subjects of horrific medical experiments carried out by eugenicist Josef Mengele, known as the "Angel of Death." Mengele's experiments focused on twins and exposed 3,000 child prisoners to disease, disfigurement and torture under the guise of medical research.

Though the Nazis also imprisoned and killed Catholics, homosexuals, political dissidents, Roma (gypsies) and the disabled, above all they targeted Jews-some 6 million of whom were killed in German-occupied Europe by war's end.

End of World War II

With defeats at El-Alamein and Stalingrad, as well as the landing of U.S. troops in North Africa by the end of 1942, the tide of the war turned against Germany.

As the conflict continued, Hitler became increasingly unwell, isolated and dependent on medications administered by his personal physician.

Several attempts were made on his life, including one that came close to succeeding in July 1944, when Col. Claus von Stauffenberg planted a bomb that exploded during a conference at Hitler's headquarters in East Prussia.

Within a few months of the successful Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944, the Allies had begun liberating cities across Europe. That December, Hitler attempted to direct another offensive through the Ardennes, trying to split British and American forces.

But after January 1945, he holed up in a bunker beneath the Chancellery in Berlin. With Soviet forces closing in, Hitler made plans for a last-ditch resistance before finally abandoning that plan.

How Did Adolf Hitler Die?

At midnight on the night of April 28-29, Hitler married Eva Braun in the Berlin bunker. After dictating his political testament, Hitler shot himself in his suite on April 30; Braun took poison. Their bodies were burned according to Hitler's instructions.

With Soviet troops occupying Berlin, Germany surrendered unconditionally on all fronts on May 7, 1945, bringing the war in Europe to a close.

In the end, Hitler's planned "Thousand-Year Reich" lasted just over 12 years, but wreaked unfathomable destruction and devastation during that time, forever transforming the history of Germany, Europe and the world.

Sources

William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
iWonder - Adolf Hitler: Man and Monster, BBC.
The Holocaust: A Learning Site for Students, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adolf Hiter: Rise to Power, Impact & Death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adolf Hitler was leader of the Nazi Party who rose to become dictator of Germany. Hitler used his power to orchestrate the deaths of 6 million Jews and millions of others during World War II.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read this article because prejudice is heavily associated to the essential question, "What causes dislike and hatred between people?". I also chose it because I wanted to learn more about what prejudice means, and how it differs from racism. I learned that prejudice is when someone forms an opinion towards a group without any knowledge, and racism is when someone forms a negative opinion solely based on their race. Prejudice can be a big factor to conflict, because prejudice is often forming an opinion based race, or ethnicity. It can be negative or positive, but many people don't like to be stereotyped in general.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The term prejudice means "prejudgment." A person is prejudiced when he has formed an attitude toward a particular social group of people before having enough information on which to form a knowledgeable opinion. A negative prejudice is when the attitude is hostile toward members of a group. A positive prejudice is when the attitude is unduly favorable toward a group. Groups that are the targets of prejudice may be distinguished by any one of several characteristics such as religion, ethnicity, language, social class, gender, physical abilities, age, or sexual orientation. Frequently they are distinguished by specific inherited physical characteristics such as skin color.

Prejudice is such a basic part of a person's complex thought process that any one of many causes may be a factor, such as a person's appearance, unfamiliar social customs of others, or even the type of motor vehicle a person drives. As noted by Gordon Allport in his landmark book, The Nature of Prejudice, it is more likely that multiple causes of prejudice may be involved at the same time. In addition, prejudice exists not only at the personal individual level, but also at the collective societal level. All human societies have prejudice in some form and to some degree. In fact many societies have multiple prejudices, such as gender prejudice against female members, racial prejudice against people of color, and religious prejudice against Catholics or Jews.

As there are many causes of prejudice, there can be many forms of prejudicial expression, the most common of which is discrimination. Discrimination is the unfair treatment of people simply because they are different from the dominant group in society. An example would be a person, group, or company favoring one person over another on some arbitrary basis, such as gender or social class (groups of people sharing similar wealth and social standing), rather than on individual merit. Prejudice and discrimination cause inequality, another phenomenon common to all societies, especially when minorities, such as people of color, including Hispanic and black Americans, may be readily identified. Racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism (hostility toward Jews as a religious or ethnic group) are all forms of prejudice and discrimination.

The first prejudices in human history perhaps resulted from a fear of strangers or feelings of superiority over others. As societies became more complex, due to an increase in population and in the ways to group people, such as through social classes and multiple ethnic groups, prejudices also became more complex. Because prejudice frequently involves multiple factors both at the individual and group levels, determining the cause of prejudice in any single person is difficult. Most people do not willingly reveal their prejudices or the reasons for them, if they are even aware of their prejudices at all. Some people may have become prejudiced through some traumatic event they experienced in their lives. Others are simply conforming to the society in which they live, expressing the same prejudices as parents, popular political leaders, or employers. Regardless of the cause of a person's prejudice, stereotypes, oversimplified opinions of others (see box), are usually involved.

WORDS TO KNOW

attitude:

A mental position regarding a particular fact or topic.

bias:

A personal judgment, often unreasoned and prejudiced outlook.

discrimination:

Unfair treatment based on arbitrary standards or criteria.

emotion:

A strong mental reaction to something, often causing sudden behavioral changes.

prejudice:

An adverse opinion, often accompanied by irrational suspicion or hatred, formed towards a particular race, religion, or group.

socialization:

The process by which a culture is learned, usually through the influences a youth experiences while growing up.

What prejudice means

To understand what causes prejudice, one must first have a grasp of the concept of prejudice. Prejudice has much the same meaning as bias. It is not just an emotion or feeling, a habit or personality trait. It is more an attitude that has been influenced by family, friends, church groups, and first-hand experiences. Humans are not born prejudiced, yet they often cultivate one form of it or another at a very early age. A prejudiced person assumes that one group, usually his own, is superior in some way to another group. A person often forms prejudices in his mind before ever meeting someone representing the group against which the person is prejudiced. In racial prejudice, the groups are defined solely by skin color. In social class prejudice, the groups are defined primarily by the part of town or area in which they live. As the person grows older, the prejudice often becomes a well-established part of his inner psychological self. It becomes an inflexible generalization about others that is difficult to change once established. These generalizations are normally hastily made. Any evidence that the assumptions about another group may be wrong, such as a female college student excelling in engineering studies, is simply considered an isolated exception.

Stereotyping

Prejudice obscures the complexity of the human experience because the person with prejudices simplifies the diversity of life found in a single society or throughout the world. A major misleading notion of prejudice is that members of a group considered a minority in some way are also majorities in other ways. They may actually share more similarities than differences with the dominant group. These simplified prejudgments of people lead to the formation of stereotypes. Stereotypes are largely taught through the socialization process by family, schools, and media such as books, television, and newspapers.

The origin of stereotyping often comes from stress. Stress causes people to view things simplistically in order to cope with the situation and seek attainable solutions. For example, in a border war between two nations, the people of one nation will view members of the other nation as strongly possessing negative traits in order to go into combat and try to kill them. Stereotyping can build a remarkable consensus in society through time. However once considered less acceptable by society, stereotypes through time may decline. Perhaps legislation is passed banning discrimination. This may lead to a decline in prejudice, but it may often occur with a long time-lag after the legislation is passed. Such change will likely lead to limits on socially acceptable behavior before actual mental attitudes change.

Stereotypes may derive from some actual aspect of the victim group such as differing typical social roles of men and women. This truth provides a starting point for the specific attribute to become exaggerated and eventually leads to a prejudice. Such stereotypes may be adopted to use in some way to justify some existing situation, such as maintaining dominance over an ethnic group.

Stereotypes may not only cause prejudice, but grow from prejudice as well. When a member of an undesired group does something not socially acceptable, the behavior may be projected to others in the group. For example, if a black person assaults another in a public setting, then a prejudiced person may associate aggressive behavior with skin color.

Not all prejudice involves negative attitudes. Some prejudices are favorable toward others, such as voting for people with similar backgrounds without knowing much about the individual person. However, even these prejudices are considered inappropriate because of the unjustified generalizations supporting them. Favorable prejudices have directly produced far less damaging consequences than negative prejudices. For this reason, they have drawn far less attention from researchers and social activists.

Persistence of prejudice

A prejudice often becomes a habit after having it for a time. Once formed, prejudices can have great persistence. The person comes to believe his opinion is well thought out, regardless of the amount of objective information provided to suggest otherwise. Prejudices become locked in a person's thought processes. Changing or eliminating these attitudes is difficult, and in many cases impossible, even when the person is presented with new information about the targeted group. This is not only true of prejudice against people. The same rigid adherence to prejudice occurs in other kinds of bias, such as prejudice against certain kinds of video games, reading material, or geographic locations.

A reason for this inflexibility is that people are prone to overgeneralize about the world around them when trying to categorize their observations. As a result, a prejudiced person thinks in terms of oversimplified images of groups. These generalized, oversimplified images are called stereotypes. The simplistic manner of viewing the world leads to the prejudice being considered "common sense." The prejudiced person likely will then accept only that information which confirms or supports his attitude, and ignore information that does not. Despite the misconceptions involved, prejudices in a person are frequently not considered abnormal thinking. In many people prejudice results from normal thought processes no matter how misguided. Prejudices become dangerous and abnormal when they lead to hostile or discriminating behavior.

That there are usually multiple causes of a person's prejudice contributes to the persistence of prejudice. Prejudice in people can be caused by psychological sources in addition to social sources, such as what is learned from parents and friends. Among psychological causes, prejudice can develop from a person's feelings of insecurity and inferiority. These feelings can stir deep emotions in people and these emotions can overwhelm other factors that might cause prejudices, such as learned social values. Because emotion is such a strong motivator of prejudice, it can be difficult to change once established.

Psychological explanations

As described by author John Duckitt in his 1992 book The Social Psychology of Prejudice, psychologists have concluded that many people have an underlying prejudiced personality that makes them less sympathetic to others who are different-for example, the disabled or people suffering from a disease such as AIDS. Psychological factors related to prejudice may include fear of the unknown, of something different, or the use of others to blame for one's own misfortunes.

A fear of diversity

Studies have shown that persons prone toward prejudice, particularly having well established prejudices, often share certain common psychological traits. Individuals with an extreme, unquestionable respect for authority figures are called authoritarians. Authoritarianism is considered an important personality factor in the development of prejudice and sustaining it. People with authoritarian personalities are considered predisposed to becoming prejudiced. Certain traits are commonly attributed to this personality type. Authoritarians typically have rigid beliefs, possess traditional values in the mainstream of society, do not tolerate weakness in themselves or others, are generally suspicious of others, believe in a strict system of punishments, and are highly respectful of authority. They have a very strong desire for conformity to society and a fear of diversity represented by others. The person reveres his own group of like-minded people while having anxieties about others. Therefore those with a particularly high level of authoritarianism are often prejudiced against all minorities. If a person does not like people of color, he probably does not like Jews or immigrants either. It is highly likely his parents were also very prejudiced against minorities. These other groups are always blamed, or made scapegoats, for the problems of prejudiced people. Scapegoating is the displacement of hostilities produced by frustrations.

Scapegoating

Scapegoating is a prejudicial thought process that has been used by people throughout history. It can cause prejudice in situations where hardships lead people to strike out. In these cases the authority figures who might be responsible for their plight are distant and inaccessible. Therefore, harsh disciplinary measures can cause the targets of the discipline to display an aggressive reaction toward others. They find scapegoats for their plight. Scapegoating means someone is blamed for something they have no control over. The scapegoat is innocent. Nonetheless, the people subject to the harsh discipline lash out at others who are more accessible, identifiable, and perhaps safer to confront than a parent or governmental authority. This usually involves looking for easy targets who are outnumbered, such as ethnic minorities or gays, or who may be physically weaker, such as women. Through their prejudices they socially devalue their target groups. Scapegoating can ultimately lead to violence and death.

Psychologists have sketched out what they believe are causes for a person to be authoritarian. These personalities often result from strict, loveless parenting. The parents imposed strong discipline, including the use of conditional love (the child was not shown affection unless he behaved as expected). As a result the child develops insecurities with a strong respect for authority figures. He cannot tolerate ambiguities or uncertainty. While becoming highly dependent on his parents, he shows both outward affection and inward hostility. He eventually grows up to harbor much anger in adulthood. The anger coupled with insecurity can cause prejudice and spark aggression toward powerless groups in society. The person feels the need to project his fears onto an inferior group in order to feel more self-respect. In addition to needing inferior groups, he also seeks hero figures to show exaggerated respect.

When authoritarians become extreme in their attitudes and actions, psychologists consider them pathological (extreme or abnormal). Most people with prejudices would not be considered pathological.

Other psychological states of mind can also lead to prejudices. For example, a mood is a more general psychological condition than an emotion. An emotion is more of a quick, frequently negative, reaction to something. A mood is a longer lasting state of mind. Good and bad moods can greatly influence how a person views members of other groups. Good moods can lead to an appreciation of individuals in other groups. A bad mood can lead to viewing members of the other group negatively. Researchers have found that both heightened happiness and anger can lead to resorting to stereotypes in resolving issues. Feelings of frustration caused by a mood are often considered a cause of aggression as well as a cause of prejudice.

What has intrigued psychologists as well as sociologists is that two people may grow up under the same home conditions and influences, yet one may be susceptible to strong prejudices and the other not. Of course, psychological factors like authoritarianism are intertwined with a host of social, cultural, and historical factors, such as legally enforced segregation in schools in the twentieth-century American South, the rise of national border disputes with other ethnic groups in the neighboring country, and a rapid rise of an activist movement such as gay rights or women's rights.

Sociological causes

Sociological causes of prejudice can take many forms They range from the natural process of a child learning the norms of a society into which she is born to economic and religious causes or fear of threats, imagined or real.

Socialization

Prejudice is taught and promoted by socialization. Socialization refers to influences a youth experiences while growing up. An individual experiences social attitudes around her from the time of birth. A family history of intolerance runs deep in a person's personality. Receptiveness to certain simplistic and rigid ideas is established as the family seeks conformity with conventional moral codes of the group with whom they identify. The personality of an individual is largely formed by age five. The child learns of prejudice largely unconsciously as part of general society. As time passes, she learns prejudices not only from family, but also schoolteachers, churches, and peer groups. In addition mass media such as movies, television, and music play a large role of at least reinforcing what the child learns from family.

By the age of five a youth has learned about categorizing people. Most people have learned some social categories by age three and almost all by age five. As described by Fiona Devine in the 1997 book Social Class in America and Britain, U.S. and British studies showed that ethnicity was the most influential factor in forming categories by youth, with gender second. Social or economic status was least important. Disabilities also had little influence on forming prejudices at early ages.

Pressures to conform to prejudicial thought and behavior become very strong when the prejudices are accepted as the social norm. Prejudice becomes perpetuated from generation to generation by blind imitation of past behavior, perhaps based on centuries of unequal relationships between certain groups. This tradition of prejudice occurred in U.S. race relations as black slavery in the nineteenth century gave way to legally enforced segregation in the twentieth century and continued discrimination based on social customs into the twenty-first century.

The youth also learn by what they observe around them. Any form of treating groups differently in a society such as racial segregation in housing, church, or school adds further reinforcement to learned prejudices. Language can also create and reinforce prejudice with degrading terms such as "nigger" for blacks.

Socially learned prejudice commonly results from a young person forming ideas of other groups of people with which he has no real immediate contact. This happens in adults as well. Much less often does prejudice result through direct contact with other people. In fact, prejudice may be overcome through direct contact under certain circumstances, such as assistance when having a problem or being forced to work together as a team in school or at work. Therefore it is an imaginary process through which prejudice often forms. The person grows up comparing himself with various groups and identifying with at least one. It is likely the only one about which he has much personal knowledge. As he gets older usually he will marry a person in the group with whom he has grown to identify.

Discrimination and prejudice

Prejudice is far more than simply a negative attitude, it often involves action such as discrimination or violence. Prejudice is not the same as discrimination. Whereas prejudice is an attitude, discrimination is an action or behavior. Studies indicate that prejudice frequently leads to discrimination. Though prejudice is often and rightly considered a key cause of discrimination, discrimination can cause prejudice, too.

Discrimination means one group enjoys an undue or undeserved advantage over another group possessing the same qualifications based on arbitrary, or random, standards or criteria. As a result the disadvantaged group faces unjustified penalties or barriers. For example, discrimination driven by prejudice can lead to a group receiving fewer opportunities for education, jobs, and career advancement. These barriers to self-improvement result in low morale and the development of few skills among members of the disadvantaged group. These results of discrimination can cause further prejudice and discrimination. It becomes a vicious, endless cycle.

Despite this close tie between the two, prejudice and discrimination are somewhat independent of each other. As noted previously, prejudice can encourage discrimination and discrimination can cause prejudice. However, prejudice does not automatically lead to discrimination. Also, a person can discriminate without being prejudiced. For example, a non-prejudiced public servant could be responsible for enforcing a law or ordinance that is discriminatory in some way. Nonetheless, prejudice and discrimination are certainly related and often found existing simultaneously within an individual or group.

Discrimination can take many forms. Extreme forms of discrimination include genocide, the deliberate killing off of a racial, religious, political, or cultural group. More subtle forms include exclusion from social activities and consistently biased media portrayals in newspapers, movies, television programs, and radio talk shows. The media and public institutions, such as schools and government agencies, can give prejudice and discrimination a social legitimacy by promoting certain social customs and influencing laws that enforce discrimination, such as the segregationist Jim Crow laws of the American South in the twentieth century.

Another example of the connection between prejudice and discrimination has come from historical efforts to reduce discrimination, such as through laws and government policies. Such attempts to ban discrimination also can lead to a reduction in prejudice, though perhaps very slowly. This trend occurred in the United States in the late twentieth century as racial discrimination became prohibited in public facilities. Though some forms of discrimination largely disappeared, prejudice decreased to a lesser degree and still remains a major feature of U.S. society. The decline in prejudice may not involve everyone. Using laws to ban discrimination driven by prejudice may actually make some individuals more prejudiced.

Social status and ethnocentrism

Another social factor that contributes to the establishment of prejudices includes a need for maintaining or elevating one's social status. This desire can lead a person or group to form prejudices and discriminate against a minority. Perhaps the person or group is in a low socioeconomic position. Fearing competition over jobs and frustrated, they need to feel superior over someone. Often people prejudiced against blacks or Jews have held a low social status in their own society. A person with a low or declining social status is more likely to have prejudices than one who has a high social status. People experiencing a low social status (a person's social standing in a society determined primarily through the prestige of his occupation, a family name, education, or profession) frequently come from near the bottom of education, income, and occupational social levels. They are also most likely to be violent in acting out their prejudices.

The desire for improved social status by a group can lead to ethnocentrism (an environment in which a social group shares certain traits, such as a unique culture, common national origin, or ancestral history, and feels superior to other ethnic groups). A person feels that the ethnic group she associates herself with is superior to other ethnic groups. Usually the group is distinguished from other groups by their cultural differences or some physical characteristics such as skin color. In the latter case, ethnocentrism takes the form of racism. Usually the person is linked through marriage and kinship relations to the group she identifies with and members of the group live close to one another. As with other forms of prejudice, an ethnocentric person may blame others for undesired events or conditions. As the intensity of ethnocentrism grows, the possibility of conflict increases, and the ethnocentrism develops into a strong prejudice.

Threats and fear

Threats to a person or group can also lead to prejudice. The threat may be either real or imagined. Threats involve fear not only of physical violence, but the loss of material wealth or financial wellbeing. An example would be an economic threat from new immigrants arriving into a country where competition over jobs is high. Also if one group believes that another group is gaining in prestige, certain emotions such as anger or frustration may trigger prejudice toward that group. In these situations prejudice results from expectations that others could cause some kind of physical or financial harm. For example, in the nineteenth century, when thousands of immigrants came to America, xenophobia (the fear of strangers) was high. White protestant Americans hated the Chinese, Irish, Jews, and Catholics because they saw them as a threat to their livelihood and familiar way of life.

Imagined threats often also involve threats to closely held social values, symbols, traditions, or viewpoints, such as the redefinition of marriage by gay activists or burning of the American flag by protestors. Though those threats may only be imagined they still lead to prejudice, especially if some level of anxiety (fearful of some possible event) already exists. Such anxiety can result from previous interaction involving conflict, from stereotypes already established in people's minds, from very different levels of social or economic status between the groups, and from competition over natural resources. Anxiety often causes people to oversimplify a situation, such as increasing use of stereotypes, and can cause less than clear thinking.

Other factors, as always, can enter into raising threat fears. Stereotyped mass media portrayals of certain groups of people can heighten fear and threats. As a result movies or television programs can unknowingly promote prejudice. Such threats can spur authoritarian behavior in the dominant groups. They impose stiffer or mandatory criminal penalties for lawbreakers who are largely believed to be members of a minority group. Those in leadership roles such as heads of government may gain greater tolerance among the population for their oppressive government actions and support for discriminatory policies toward minorities.

Prejudice can also result from a person's fear that he may suffer some negative repercussions from his own group because he interacted with people in a subordinate group. The person could face embarrassment, ridicule, or even rejection by his own group for interacting with members of a minority.

Whatever the nature of the threat, fear is a major cause of prejudice. Fear often comes from the unknown, or ignorance (lack of knowledge) about something or some group. If ignorance causes fear and fear causes prejudice, then it may be assumed that increased knowledge or information, such as meeting the feared group, would lead to less fear and, as a result, less prejudice. However, this is not always the case. Certain conditions about the kind of contact between groups must be met for prejudice to actually decrease. For example, the contact must be positive between groups or individuals and they must be of relatively equal social status. They should share common goals and have little competition between them over resources. The contact should also be supported and encouraged by government authorities of some sort. Though prejudice is a deeply ingrained part of a person's character, it is a habit that can be broken.

Immigration

An immigrant is a person who intends to reside permanently in another country. Immigration is a controversial issue throughout the world, and many people are uncomfortable with immigration. Xenophobia is fear of strangers, often leading to distrust and hatred. Prejudices build as people claim immigrants isolate themselves and do not blend into their new country, acquire jobs that others native to the country could have obtained, lower wage levels by working for less money, consume the nation's limited resources, and put a strain on social systems such as welfare and public schools. Immigrants are frequently used as scapegoats when unemployment rises, crime increases, or the quality of education declines. Often politicians take strong anti-immigrant positions to distract voters from real political or economic problems facing society.

In the United States anti-immigrant views existed throughout the twentieth century in different forms. Prejudices against Irish and Italians gave way to prejudices against Asian Americans, then Mexicans, and finally Arabs and Muslims. Illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border became a major concern in the early twenty-first century. Several hundred volunteers patrolled the Mexican border to assist law authorities. Prejudices against immigrants led to various laws to restrict immigration, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 establishing crimes for companies hiring illegal immigrants (people in the country without proper approval).

Immigration was not a major cause of prejudice in Western Europe until the 1970s. With an increased arrival of Muslims from North Africa into France and other European countries fears and prejudices rose. Even new political parties were established with anti-immigration as their main political position. These include the New Britain Party, founded in Britain in 1977, the Republicans Party in Germany, and France's National Front Party, founded in 1972. Riots in France in November 2005 increased fears of continued high immigration levels.

Conformity

Conformity is behaving within the traditions or norms of a society. By seeking acceptance in a society, conformity creates or perpetuates prejudice in a person. In this way, conformity to existing attitudes and traditions may be the cause of most prejudice. It is a very powerful motivator of prejudice. Studies have shown that people who move into areas where prejudice is the norm show increased prejudice in their behavior. In contrast, a person moving to an area of less prejudice shows a decline in his level of prejudice.

Some societies in which the dominant group gains economic or political advantage form prejudice against minorities and intentionally promote prejudice through laws and policy to gain a conformity in prejudice among its members. A key example was the Jim Crow laws of the American South that legally enforced racial segregation in the twentieth century. The laws sustained white dominance existing from the earlier days of slavery. Such laws create the appearance or illusion of inferiority of the minority such as black Americans.

Economic competition

Some groups create racial prejudice for personal gain. Economic factors can play a major role in fostering prejudices when one group or nation seeks to gain control of the resources of another group or nation. Growth of the British Empire in the seventeenth century is a prime example of economic domination based on prejudices. Britain colonized (settled and governed) major parts of several continents including Africa, India, Asia, Australia, and North America. Racist prejudice was established to spur this global expansion. In addition, the colonizers gained cheap, plentiful labor through racial dominance for their growing worldwide economy. In some cases British colonizers sought to eliminate the histories of the subordinate minorities such as the Aborigines of Australia. From history come traditions and norms and social institutions that perpetuate lifestyles and views of the world. The British sought to undermine Aborigine independence. One means of accomplishing this goal was to take Aborigine children from their homes and place them in foster homes of non-indigenous people. This effort proved devastating to the families involved, and was unsuccessful in terms of eliminating indigenous culture. Once prejudice is created to control access to goods or wealth, then it becomes self-perpetuating because of the disparities or inequalities created. Those in lower social classes, such as the working class, typically become characterized as uneducated and lazy and given few opportunities for economic improvement.

Sometimes financial greed leads to the formation of prejudice when a group feels as though another group is blocking its access to certain opportunities. The group forms prejudices to justify ways of overcoming the barriers such as through force or political dominance. One group often uses discrimination driven by prejudice to gain an economic advantage over others. History has shown that as the number of available jobs decreases, prejudice and discrimination increase. In this way, economic competition causes prejudice and discrimination.

When two social groups of relatively equal standing are economically competing, the chance of prejudice increases. Usually the economic competition is related to struggles over political control or power and social prestige. Economists believe that prejudice frequently grows from competition over access to wealth and resources. One group eventually gains economic dominance over other groups aided by prejudicial attitudes established toward those other groups. The other groups become portrayed as threats to the interests of the dominant group increasing fears among dominant group members.

To reinforce its prejudice, the dominant group demonizes the minority group by claiming that its social norms are deviant. The dominant group usually has the power to portray minorities as stereotypes in the media, such as in newspapers or movies. Such portrayals are offered as just plain common sense. The dominant group can also promote prejudice among its members through governmental laws and policies that affect religious practices, educational opportunities, and relations in the workplace. This group may also protect these stereotypes by admitting that exceptions can be found in the minority group, but those exceptions do not change the overall deficient character of the minority. In this way the stereotype persists despite evidence to the contrary.

As a result, minority groups lack equal access to certain natural resources, such as valuable timber stands or minerals, certain social privileges such as healthcare, and job opportunities enjoyed by others. Such inequality of power promotes prejudice, and prejudice leads to an even greater inequality of power. Sometimes the minority groups in these situations also develop prejudices; these are called reactive prejudices and are driven by envy as well as anger as the domination grows over the minorities.

Economists believe the economic causes of prejudice, even within a single society, outweigh political, religious, and cultural factors since money in the twenty-first century carries with it influence and political power. Prejudices fueled by economic factors lead to a society of different social classes (different groups distinguished by their degree of their wealth or prestige). According to these scholars, the concentrated control of property by the dominant group leads to prejudice in the dominant group over minorities. This dominance leads to the formation and perpetuation of social classes in which prejudice play a prominent role. Social classes are another form of social groups. Not only do the upper classes form prejudices against the lower classes, the lower classes also become prejudiced against members of the upper classes. Therefore the control of money and property (such as factories and natural resources) spurs prejudice among different classes of society. One group includes those who control the available capital (money to invest), business owners, and the large landowners. The other main group includes the workers themselves who sell their labor to factories and businesses to make a living.

The distinction of these basic social classes is maintained in certain ways, with prejudices playing a key role. For example, the government can use police powers or legislation to maintain order and class separation. Prejudices are built directly into these governmental policies and actions. Another means of maintaining separation and domination is development of ideology, or myths, that maintain the legitimacy of those in power. Those in power control information and even religion that supports their grip over resources and capital. The lower classes come to view their situation as inevitable in life, something they cannot change. It becomes difficult for workers to resist or rebel due to lack of money and the political control exerted over them. In addition, state-sponsored social reforms such as welfare are spurred by those in power to help to maintain the status quo (existing situation) by undercutting efforts by the poor and powerless to rebel. Force is used when needed to maintain the order.

The gap in distribution of money and wealth within the United States between the upper and lower classes has continued to grow wider into the twenty-first century. Consequently, prejudices between rich and poor carry on. A key part of this trend through time has been the increased concentration of corporate power. Many believe that for the economic system to survive and grow, inequality must be maintained. Restricted educational and job promotion opportunities maintain lower classes while the privileged maintain their control and position. Prejudice in the dominant groups creates lesser valued groups referred to as "Others," who do not measure up to the privileged. As a result, people grow up learning their position in society. Notions become set among the poor and minorities that they are that way due to their own fault, not because of the barriers placed in front of them that inhibit their improvement in social position. Some economists claim that inequalities, maintained through prejudices, are necessary for a society to function. They believe that societies need minority groups to serve as a working class.

Political and religious causes

The social restrictions of governmental systems and religious organizations have also caused prejudices. Not only does political control, including police powers, keep minority groups in check, but nationalism does as well. Nationalism is the favoring of one's own country over others. Nationalism can create political unity through identification with commonly held traits such as language, religion, or some physical trait. Solidarity in striving toward a common national goal is established such as expansion of political or economic control by taking over other countries.

The strength of nationalism, another social cause of prejudice, also works against efforts by dominated groups, such as the working class, to rebel. People's strong affiliation to the nation in which they live inhibits them from combating the prejudice and discrimination of those in power. The dominant group constructs a society with symbols, such as flags and stately capitols, and words, such as allegiance and patriotism, to perpetuate these nationalistic prejudices and maintain the desired social order.

Religion can serve to combat prejudice, but it also promotes prejudice by promoting the ideas that certain people are the "chosen" people and others are not. Religion can preach that unity is the natural order of humankind and that unity is characterized by diversity, not prejudice and discrimination.

Rationalizing prejudice

Acting out a prejudice in some discriminatory way or even causing a prejudice can involve the mental process of rationalization. Rationalization means making something seem reasonable even when it is not to most people. A person persuades himself that discriminating against some group is for the good of society. During World War II (1939-45), Nazi Germans became convinced that ridding society of Jews and others considered genetically or behaviorally undesirable would improve the German race. Perhaps the discrimination is supposedly necessary for religious reasons. Conquest or murder can be carried out for religious reasons based on a person's or group's rationalization toward prejudice.

Various forms of rationalization may come into play. A dominant group may keep a minority group in an inferior status by rationalizing that it was in the minority's best interest. The prejudicial action may likely be considered noble in character. The fatherly, or paternal, treatment of Native Americans and blacks in America owes to this type of rationalization. Through its own prejudice, the dominant group believes it needs to guide and protect the dominated group. Even the worst atrocities inflicted by people against fellow humans-including genocide-have been rationalized.

For More Information

BOOKS

Allport, Gordon W. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1979.

Baird, Robert M., and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds. Bigotry, Prejudice, and Hatred: Definitions, Causes and Solutions. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992.

Brown, Rupert. Prejudice: Its Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995.

Devine, Fiona. Social Class in America and Britain. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 1997.

Domhoff, G. William. Who Rules America? Power, Politics, and Social Change. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Dovidio, John F., Peter Glick, and Laurie A. Rudman, eds. On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Duckitt, John. The Social Psychology of Prejudice. New York: Praeger, 1992.

WEB SITES

The Prejudice Institute. http://www.prejudiceinstitute.org/ (accessed on November 29, 2006).

Understanding Prejudice. http://www.understandingprejudice.org/ (accessed on November 29, 2006).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term prejudice means "prejudgment." A person is prejudiced when he has formed an attitude toward a particular social group of people before having enough information on which to form a knowledgeable opinion. A negative prejudice is when the attitude is hostile toward members of a group.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read this article because I wanted to know some different reasons to why we hate. I got some good understandings about how we tend to put anger on others which causes dislike between people. I also read that you should be focusing on yourself and not others when your'e angry or frustrated. Hate is a simplified method for the difficult task of managing difference and some people cant manage difference so they choose to hate. I really liked this article because it gave many details and was very helpful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Working in conflict resolution, I get to hear a lot of stories about why some individual or group is worthy of being hated. Without a doubt, these stories are often bolstered by pulse-raising examples with the potential to provoke even the most skilled facilitative mediators into an evaluative stance. At the same time, beyond these stories lay patterns, many of which shed light on the dynamics of why we hate.

In my observations, there are three main reasons we hate others.

Reason #1: We seek a specific and identifiable outlet for our generalized feelings of anger. Contemporary thinker Rene Girard describes this in detail when he explains his theory on the nature of scapegoating and the function it plays in our social lives. Hate allows us to define clearly who is in our group and who is not. When an individual or group feels tension, and they don't know how to resolve it, they seek out a scapegoat, express their hatred for it, and then expel it from their world. Once the scapegoat is removed, the individual or group experiences a feeling of unity and peace. That is, until the next time tensions rise and a new scapegoat needs to be found. The key to this pattern is that it replicates each time there is tension, and that tension is expressed by hating the scapegoat.

Reason #2: Hate is a simplified method for the difficult task of managing difference. For each of us, there are differences that matter to our community and to ourselves. In some cases it is religion, language, and race. Groups and individuals that manage difference well are often brave and curious, supported by a sense of safety from which they can explore the mysteries and uncertainties of life. However, there are times when the differences around us become too much to bear. These differences threaten our sense of self and our notions of group identity. Such differences become even more acute when they coincide with trauma, violence, and/or humiliation. Vamik Volkan's book Bloodlines describes this pattern in detail, where he observes how the experience of difference can shift from identity and pride to terrorism and hatred. Rather than accept the instability of a potentially unknowable difference, we choose to hate.

Reason #3: Because hatred is energizing. When we feel helpless, frustrated, or disempowered, hating another becomes a way to climb out of those difficult feelings. We can redirect our personal pain to an external, well-defined target. One who feels empowered, motivated and successful has no need for hatred; they have plenty of energy already. For one who is stuck in listlessness, though, hatred can be a shot in the arm.

Often when I meet with clients who are in the middle of deep anger, I ask them to focus on themselves before thinking of others. The key here is self-care. My father always told me that if I have a problem with one person to talk it out, but if I have a problem with many people look inside me. Most people find greater strength to face their emotions and greater clarity on when and how to communicate problems with others when they take care of their own needs first.

So what do we do when we notice these dynamics at play? I offer these questions for reflection: First, observe where you fit into these patterns. Where might you be scapegoating others? Second, how are you managing differences? Do you feel safe enough to explore the unknown? Finally, What ways are you communicating your emotions to others? How are you caring for your anger and healing your hurts? When do you need to focus on yourself before engaging with others?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Working in conflict resolution, I get to hear a lot of stories about why some individual or group is worthy of being hated. Without a doubt, these stories are often bolstered by pulse-raising examples with the potential to provoke even the most skilled facilitative mediators into an evaluative stance.

# data[].attributes.body
I read this article because the i don't really get along with people and it sounded pretty interesting for my essential question. This article talk about how asking people questions can bring people together and answers can bring people apart for an example asking someone "What are you so afraid of?" the responds can be a bit reveal to the person. it can reveal. It can reveal your thought and opinion on someone. Overall this passage is gave me a great idea of what cause dislike in someone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them."

Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

If we're looking for solutions to this growing problem of polarization, we might want to start by asking each other more questions.

As I researched the power of questioning for The Book of Beautiful Questions, I talked to experts in various fields who tended to agree that by asking thoughtful, curious questions of another person, we can quickly build trust and rapport-even with people who might see the world differently than we do.

When questions are formulated and asked the right way, they can do a few key things to draw people closer together, says relationship researcher Arthur Aron. "First, just by asking questions, you're showing that you care about the other person," Aron explains. "Second, the question encourages that person to reveal something about themselves. And then that creates an opportunity for you to respond to what they are revealing."

Over the past few decades, Aron has conducted experiments in which strangers are paired up and instructed to ask one another a series of questions-and he has found it to be a surprisingly effective relationship-building tool. This has even been true when the question-asking experiments were conducted among people who might be expected to have very different perspectives and attitudes. For example, Aron has paired up questioners of different races, and in another study, he instructed police officers and local citizens to ask questions of one another.

After sharing questions and answers, the participants tended to like and understand each other better. Beyond that, Aron also found that the questioning exercises generated positive feelings that extended to the overall group-thus, the person who shared questions with a police officer was then apt to like all police more, and likewise for those who exchanged questions with someone from another race.

Of course, in using questions to better connect with someone, what you ask and how you ask it is critical. Questions worded poorly or asked in the wrong tone can be off-putting or even confrontational. To quote the radio interviewer and expert questioner Krista Tippett: "It's hard to transcend a combative question. But it's hard to resist a generous question. We all have it in us to formulate questions that invite honesty, dignity, and revelation." I think of such inviting questions as "bridge questions"-because they can help us traverse the divide that separates us from others.

Building a Question Bridge

If you'd like to try building a question bridge that might help you reach out to someone you've been having trouble connecting with (be it a co-worker you tend to disagree with or an uncle with sharply different political views), here are few points to keep in mind:

* Begin by asking yourself a question. Why am I trying to cross this particular divide? It's usually a worthwhile and admirable thing to attempt-but just make sure you're doing it for the "right" reasons. Those might include: trying to repair or strengthen a personal relationship that's important to you; trying to promote civil discourse and greater understanding among people within your circle at work, among friends, or at home; or, it could be that you want to broaden your own thinking.

But if you're planning to cross that divide so you can convert someone on the other side to your point of view, forget about it. The evidence suggests you're unlikely to succeed (no matter how many facts and talking points you're armed with)-and you may end up doing more harm than good to the relationship.

* Decide, at the outset, that you're going to be driven by curiosity. And that your "guiding question," throughout this interaction, will be: W hat can I learn from this person who sees things differently than I do?

Not only does curiosity help open up your own thinking to new information, it also signals to the other person that you're coming to this exchange seeking to understand, rather than to attack or judge. You can signal your curiosity in simple ways: foremost by listening intently, but also by prefacing your own questions with phrases like, "I'm curious about something," or "I was wondering about this, and maybe you can help me understand..."

* As you begin, be careful about allowing your own views and assumptions to influence your questions. Particularly when discussing hot-button issues, it's easy to fall into the trap of asking loaded questions such as, How on earth could you believe such a thing? In order to move the conversation forward, you should be asking questions that are free of assumptions, judgments, and veiled criticism, says Jeremy Hay, co-founder of Spaceship Media, a group that organizes and hosts conversations between groups with opposing viewpoints.

One of Spaceship Media's most recent projects, "Guns: An American Conversation," brought together people who disagree on that controversial subject; the participants communicated with each other for a month via a moderated Facebook Group. The moderators coached and steered participants away from asking questions that contained "embedded assumptions." For example, one anti-gun participant initially wanted to ask gun owners in the group, What are you so afraid of?, but was then coached to reframe the question to: Can you tell me more about why you feel you need lots of guns?

* Once you've asked questions that respectfully solicit the other person's views and feelings, try to find some area(s) of agreement. This does not mean you have to back down from your own stance or beliefs. It isn't necessary to agree with someone else's overall position; the idea is to try to find some element of their belief that seems reasonable and understandable--"it could be their goals, intentions, concerns, emotions," says Josh Davis, senior director of research at the Institute for Personal Leadership.

You can use questions to help locate that common ground. James Ryan, dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Education, often relies on the question: Couldn't we at least agree that ___? (You can fill in that blank with anything that seems like a reasonable point both sides can accept). "Asking 'Couldn't we at least agree?' is a way to push back against polarization and extremism, because it is an invitation to find some areas of consensus," according to Ryan. He told me he uses the question "whenever there's an impasse." For example, during heated discussions with fellow educators about different teaching methods, Ryan may ask something like, Couldn't we at least agree that everyone in this room wants to improve education for our students? "It lowers the temperature and refocuses the conversation on what we agree on, instead of what we disagree on," Ryan says.

* Challenge your conversation partner to shift his/her thinking, just a little. And challenge yourself to do likewise. Here are two great questions that can help with that: After you've inquired about the other person's views and shared your own, try asking: Can you find anything in your position that gives you pause? Then follow that up with: Is there anything in my position that you are attracted to or find interesting? Be sure to then turn those two questions on yourself. This forces both of you to acknowledge flaws in your own argument and strengths in the other person's argument. (Hat tip to radio host Tippett, who featured a slightly different version of these two questions in her book, Becoming Wise).

* If all else fails, try this trick. Using a technique adapted from an area of study known as " motivational interviewing," ask your companion to rate something the/she disagrees with on a scale of one to ten. For example: On a scale of 1 to 10, how much of global climate change theory do you think is true? (1 = None of it is true; 10 = All of it is true).

Researchers have found that even when people are rating something they disagree with or don't like, they rarely pick the lowest number. They're more likely to cite a low-range number like two or three. In which case, you can follow up by asking: Why did you pick two or three, instead of the lowest number? To answer that question, the person is almost forced to come up with something positive about your position-which means they are beginning to articulate the other side of their own argument.

* Take it slow. don't expect to reach total agreement on anything quickly. "Science Guy" Bill Nye reminds us that we must be patient with those whose views differ from our own. "We tend to say, 'Look at the facts! Change your mind!' But it can take people a couple of years to change their mind." In the meantime, Nye suggests that "the way to overcome that is to say, 'We're all in this together-let's learn about this together.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them." Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

# data[].attributes.body
I read this article because the title of it sounded like something that would have some good stuff about what causes dislike between people, and I was right. This article talked about how questions bring people together and it's the answers that bring them apart. Overall this article was a very good choice with good stuff about causing dislike.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them."

Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

If we're looking for solutions to this growing problem of polarization, we might want to start by asking each other more questions.

As I researched the power of questioning for The Book of Beautiful Questions, I talked to experts in various fields who tended to agree that by asking thoughtful, curious questions of another person, we can quickly build trust and rapport-even with people who might see the world differently than we do.

When questions are formulated and asked the right way, they can do a few key things to draw people closer together, says relationship researcher Arthur Aron. "First, just by asking questions, you're showing that you care about the other person," Aron explains. "Second, the question encourages that person to reveal something about themselves. And then that creates an opportunity for you to respond to what they are revealing."

Over the past few decades, Aron has conducted experiments in which strangers are paired up and instructed to ask one another a series of questions-and he has found it to be a surprisingly effective relationship-building tool. This has even been true when the question-asking experiments were conducted among people who might be expected to have very different perspectives and attitudes. For example, Aron has paired up questioners of different races, and in another study, he instructed police officers and local citizens to ask questions of one another.

After sharing questions and answers, the participants tended to like and understand each other better. Beyond that, Aron also found that the questioning exercises generated positive feelings that extended to the overall group-thus, the person who shared questions with a police officer was then apt to like all police more, and likewise for those who exchanged questions with someone from another race.

Of course, in using questions to better connect with someone, what you ask and how you ask it is critical. Questions worded poorly or asked in the wrong tone can be off-putting or even confrontational. To quote the radio interviewer and expert questioner Krista Tippett: "It's hard to transcend a combative question. But it's hard to resist a generous question. We all have it in us to formulate questions that invite honesty, dignity, and revelation." I think of such inviting questions as "bridge questions"-because they can help us traverse the divide that separates us from others.

Building a Question Bridge

If you'd like to try building a question bridge that might help you reach out to someone you've been having trouble connecting with (be it a co-worker you tend to disagree with or an uncle with sharply different political views), here are few points to keep in mind:

* Begin by asking yourself a question. Why am I trying to cross this particular divide? It's usually a worthwhile and admirable thing to attempt-but just make sure you're doing it for the "right" reasons. Those might include: trying to repair or strengthen a personal relationship that's important to you; trying to promote civil discourse and greater understanding among people within your circle at work, among friends, or at home; or, it could be that you want to broaden your own thinking.

But if you're planning to cross that divide so you can convert someone on the other side to your point of view, forget about it. The evidence suggests you're unlikely to succeed (no matter how many facts and talking points you're armed with)-and you may end up doing more harm than good to the relationship.

* Decide, at the outset, that you're going to be driven by curiosity. And that your "guiding question," throughout this interaction, will be: W hat can I learn from this person who sees things differently than I do?

Not only does curiosity help open up your own thinking to new information, it also signals to the other person that you're coming to this exchange seeking to understand, rather than to attack or judge. You can signal your curiosity in simple ways: foremost by listening intently, but also by prefacing your own questions with phrases like, "I'm curious about something," or "I was wondering about this, and maybe you can help me understand..."

* As you begin, be careful about allowing your own views and assumptions to influence your questions. Particularly when discussing hot-button issues, it's easy to fall into the trap of asking loaded questions such as, How on earth could you believe such a thing? In order to move the conversation forward, you should be asking questions that are free of assumptions, judgments, and veiled criticism, says Jeremy Hay, co-founder of Spaceship Media, a group that organizes and hosts conversations between groups with opposing viewpoints.

One of Spaceship Media's most recent projects, "Guns: An American Conversation," brought together people who disagree on that controversial subject; the participants communicated with each other for a month via a moderated Facebook Group. The moderators coached and steered participants away from asking questions that contained "embedded assumptions." For example, one anti-gun participant initially wanted to ask gun owners in the group, What are you so afraid of?, but was then coached to reframe the question to: Can you tell me more about why you feel you need lots of guns?

* Once you've asked questions that respectfully solicit the other person's views and feelings, try to find some area(s) of agreement. This does not mean you have to back down from your own stance or beliefs. It isn't necessary to agree with someone else's overall position; the idea is to try to find some element of their belief that seems reasonable and understandable--"it could be their goals, intentions, concerns, emotions," says Josh Davis, senior director of research at the Institute for Personal Leadership.

You can use questions to help locate that common ground. James Ryan, dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Education, often relies on the question: Couldn't we at least agree that ___? (You can fill in that blank with anything that seems like a reasonable point both sides can accept). "Asking 'Couldn't we at least agree?' is a way to push back against polarization and extremism, because it is an invitation to find some areas of consensus," according to Ryan. He told me he uses the question "whenever there's an impasse." For example, during heated discussions with fellow educators about different teaching methods, Ryan may ask something like, Couldn't we at least agree that everyone in this room wants to improve education for our students? "It lowers the temperature and refocuses the conversation on what we agree on, instead of what we disagree on," Ryan says.

* Challenge your conversation partner to shift his/her thinking, just a little. And challenge yourself to do likewise. Here are two great questions that can help with that: After you've inquired about the other person's views and shared your own, try asking: Can you find anything in your position that gives you pause? Then follow that up with: Is there anything in my position that you are attracted to or find interesting? Be sure to then turn those two questions on yourself. This forces both of you to acknowledge flaws in your own argument and strengths in the other person's argument. (Hat tip to radio host Tippett, who featured a slightly different version of these two questions in her book, Becoming Wise).

* If all else fails, try this trick. Using a technique adapted from an area of study known as " motivational interviewing," ask your companion to rate something the/she disagrees with on a scale of one to ten. For example: On a scale of 1 to 10, how much of global climate change theory do you think is true? (1 = None of it is true; 10 = All of it is true).

Researchers have found that even when people are rating something they disagree with or don't like, they rarely pick the lowest number. They're more likely to cite a low-range number like two or three. In which case, you can follow up by asking: Why did you pick two or three, instead of the lowest number? To answer that question, the person is almost forced to come up with something positive about your position-which means they are beginning to articulate the other side of their own argument.

* Take it slow. don't expect to reach total agreement on anything quickly. "Science Guy" Bill Nye reminds us that we must be patient with those whose views differ from our own. "We tend to say, 'Look at the facts! Change your mind!' But it can take people a couple of years to change their mind." In the meantime, Nye suggests that "the way to overcome that is to say, 'We're all in this together-let's learn about this together.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them." Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read this article because i wanted to learn about it i feel like this arcticle gave me the chance to learn how nicely worded questions can show your chracter traits or attitude like "are you alright" "how was your day' can be a sign that you are thoughtful also this article showed me that asking questions can bond people together and make them like eachother more and more and change their opinion of others at first sight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them."

Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

If we're looking for solutions to this growing problem of polarization, we might want to start by asking each other more questions.

As I researched the power of questioning for The Book of Beautiful Questions, I talked to experts in various fields who tended to agree that by asking thoughtful, curious questions of another person, we can quickly build trust and rapport-even with people who might see the world differently than we do.

When questions are formulated and asked the right way, they can do a few key things to draw people closer together, says relationship researcher Arthur Aron. "First, just by asking questions, you're showing that you care about the other person," Aron explains. "Second, the question encourages that person to reveal something about themselves. And then that creates an opportunity for you to respond to what they are revealing."

Over the past few decades, Aron has conducted experiments in which strangers are paired up and instructed to ask one another a series of questions-and he has found it to be a surprisingly effective relationship-building tool. This has even been true when the question-asking experiments were conducted among people who might be expected to have very different perspectives and attitudes. For example, Aron has paired up questioners of different races, and in another study, he instructed police officers and local citizens to ask questions of one another.

After sharing questions and answers, the participants tended to like and understand each other better. Beyond that, Aron also found that the questioning exercises generated positive feelings that extended to the overall group-thus, the person who shared questions with a police officer was then apt to like all police more, and likewise for those who exchanged questions with someone from another race.

Of course, in using questions to better connect with someone, what you ask and how you ask it is critical. Questions worded poorly or asked in the wrong tone can be off-putting or even confrontational. To quote the radio interviewer and expert questioner Krista Tippett: "It's hard to transcend a combative question. But it's hard to resist a generous question. We all have it in us to formulate questions that invite honesty, dignity, and revelation." I think of such inviting questions as "bridge questions"-because they can help us traverse the divide that separates us from others.

Building a Question Bridge

If you'd like to try building a question bridge that might help you reach out to someone you've been having trouble connecting with (be it a co-worker you tend to disagree with or an uncle with sharply different political views), here are few points to keep in mind:

* Begin by asking yourself a question. Why am I trying to cross this particular divide? It's usually a worthwhile and admirable thing to attempt-but just make sure you're doing it for the "right" reasons. Those might include: trying to repair or strengthen a personal relationship that's important to you; trying to promote civil discourse and greater understanding among people within your circle at work, among friends, or at home; or, it could be that you want to broaden your own thinking.

But if you're planning to cross that divide so you can convert someone on the other side to your point of view, forget about it. The evidence suggests you're unlikely to succeed (no matter how many facts and talking points you're armed with)-and you may end up doing more harm than good to the relationship.

* Decide, at the outset, that you're going to be driven by curiosity. And that your "guiding question," throughout this interaction, will be: W hat can I learn from this person who sees things differently than I do?

Not only does curiosity help open up your own thinking to new information, it also signals to the other person that you're coming to this exchange seeking to understand, rather than to attack or judge. You can signal your curiosity in simple ways: foremost by listening intently, but also by prefacing your own questions with phrases like, "I'm curious about something," or "I was wondering about this, and maybe you can help me understand..."

* As you begin, be careful about allowing your own views and assumptions to influence your questions. Particularly when discussing hot-button issues, it's easy to fall into the trap of asking loaded questions such as, How on earth could you believe such a thing? In order to move the conversation forward, you should be asking questions that are free of assumptions, judgments, and veiled criticism, says Jeremy Hay, co-founder of Spaceship Media, a group that organizes and hosts conversations between groups with opposing viewpoints.

One of Spaceship Media's most recent projects, "Guns: An American Conversation," brought together people who disagree on that controversial subject; the participants communicated with each other for a month via a moderated Facebook Group. The moderators coached and steered participants away from asking questions that contained "embedded assumptions." For example, one anti-gun participant initially wanted to ask gun owners in the group, What are you so afraid of?, but was then coached to reframe the question to: Can you tell me more about why you feel you need lots of guns?

* Once you've asked questions that respectfully solicit the other person's views and feelings, try to find some area(s) of agreement. This does not mean you have to back down from your own stance or beliefs. It isn't necessary to agree with someone else's overall position; the idea is to try to find some element of their belief that seems reasonable and understandable--"it could be their goals, intentions, concerns, emotions," says Josh Davis, senior director of research at the Institute for Personal Leadership.

You can use questions to help locate that common ground. James Ryan, dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Education, often relies on the question: Couldn't we at least agree that ___? (You can fill in that blank with anything that seems like a reasonable point both sides can accept). "Asking 'Couldn't we at least agree?' is a way to push back against polarization and extremism, because it is an invitation to find some areas of consensus," according to Ryan. He told me he uses the question "whenever there's an impasse." For example, during heated discussions with fellow educators about different teaching methods, Ryan may ask something like, Couldn't we at least agree that everyone in this room wants to improve education for our students? "It lowers the temperature and refocuses the conversation on what we agree on, instead of what we disagree on," Ryan says.

* Challenge your conversation partner to shift his/her thinking, just a little. And challenge yourself to do likewise. Here are two great questions that can help with that: After you've inquired about the other person's views and shared your own, try asking: Can you find anything in your position that gives you pause? Then follow that up with: Is there anything in my position that you are attracted to or find interesting? Be sure to then turn those two questions on yourself. This forces both of you to acknowledge flaws in your own argument and strengths in the other person's argument. (Hat tip to radio host Tippett, who featured a slightly different version of these two questions in her book, Becoming Wise).

* If all else fails, try this trick. Using a technique adapted from an area of study known as " motivational interviewing," ask your companion to rate something the/she disagrees with on a scale of one to ten. For example: On a scale of 1 to 10, how much of global climate change theory do you think is true? (1 = None of it is true; 10 = All of it is true).

Researchers have found that even when people are rating something they disagree with or don't like, they rarely pick the lowest number. They're more likely to cite a low-range number like two or three. In which case, you can follow up by asking: Why did you pick two or three, instead of the lowest number? To answer that question, the person is almost forced to come up with something positive about your position-which means they are beginning to articulate the other side of their own argument.

* Take it slow. don't expect to reach total agreement on anything quickly. "Science Guy" Bill Nye reminds us that we must be patient with those whose views differ from our own. "We tend to say, 'Look at the facts! Change your mind!' But it can take people a couple of years to change their mind." In the meantime, Nye suggests that "the way to overcome that is to say, 'We're all in this together-let's learn about this together.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them." Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read their article because it is something I wanted to learn about. If you ask someone easy questions like " How are you", "Did you have a good day" is a sign you care but could do better. You want people to trust you and tell you their heart. People want to make sure they can trust you as who they are. I feel like this article l gave you a chance to change how you make conversations and how you talk to people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them."

Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

If we're looking for solutions to this growing problem of polarization, we might want to start by asking each other more questions.

As I researched the power of questioning for The Book of Beautiful Questions, I talked to experts in various fields who tended to agree that by asking thoughtful, curious questions of another person, we can quickly build trust and rapport-even with people who might see the world differently than we do.

When questions are formulated and asked the right way, they can do a few key things to draw people closer together, says relationship researcher Arthur Aron. "First, just by asking questions, you're showing that you care about the other person," Aron explains. "Second, the question encourages that person to reveal something about themselves. And then that creates an opportunity for you to respond to what they are revealing."

Over the past few decades, Aron has conducted experiments in which strangers are paired up and instructed to ask one another a series of questions-and he has found it to be a surprisingly effective relationship-building tool. This has even been true when the question-asking experiments were conducted among people who might be expected to have very different perspectives and attitudes. For example, Aron has paired up questioners of different races, and in another study, he instructed police officers and local citizens to ask questions of one another.

After sharing questions and answers, the participants tended to like and understand each other better. Beyond that, Aron also found that the questioning exercises generated positive feelings that extended to the overall group-thus, the person who shared questions with a police officer was then apt to like all police more, and likewise for those who exchanged questions with someone from another race.

Of course, in using questions to better connect with someone, what you ask and how you ask it is critical. Questions worded poorly or asked in the wrong tone can be off-putting or even confrontational. To quote the radio interviewer and expert questioner Krista Tippett: "It's hard to transcend a combative question. But it's hard to resist a generous question. We all have it in us to formulate questions that invite honesty, dignity, and revelation." I think of such inviting questions as "bridge questions"-because they can help us traverse the divide that separates us from others.

Building a Question Bridge

If you'd like to try building a question bridge that might help you reach out to someone you've been having trouble connecting with (be it a co-worker you tend to disagree with or an uncle with sharply different political views), here are few points to keep in mind:

* Begin by asking yourself a question. Why am I trying to cross this particular divide? It's usually a worthwhile and admirable thing to attempt-but just make sure you're doing it for the "right" reasons. Those might include: trying to repair or strengthen a personal relationship that's important to you; trying to promote civil discourse and greater understanding among people within your circle at work, among friends, or at home; or, it could be that you want to broaden your own thinking.

But if you're planning to cross that divide so you can convert someone on the other side to your point of view, forget about it. The evidence suggests you're unlikely to succeed (no matter how many facts and talking points you're armed with)-and you may end up doing more harm than good to the relationship.

* Decide, at the outset, that you're going to be driven by curiosity. And that your "guiding question," throughout this interaction, will be: W hat can I learn from this person who sees things differently than I do?

Not only does curiosity help open up your own thinking to new information, it also signals to the other person that you're coming to this exchange seeking to understand, rather than to attack or judge. You can signal your curiosity in simple ways: foremost by listening intently, but also by prefacing your own questions with phrases like, "I'm curious about something," or "I was wondering about this, and maybe you can help me understand..."

* As you begin, be careful about allowing your own views and assumptions to influence your questions. Particularly when discussing hot-button issues, it's easy to fall into the trap of asking loaded questions such as, How on earth could you believe such a thing? In order to move the conversation forward, you should be asking questions that are free of assumptions, judgments, and veiled criticism, says Jeremy Hay, co-founder of Spaceship Media, a group that organizes and hosts conversations between groups with opposing viewpoints.

One of Spaceship Media's most recent projects, "Guns: An American Conversation," brought together people who disagree on that controversial subject; the participants communicated with each other for a month via a moderated Facebook Group. The moderators coached and steered participants away from asking questions that contained "embedded assumptions." For example, one anti-gun participant initially wanted to ask gun owners in the group, What are you so afraid of?, but was then coached to reframe the question to: Can you tell me more about why you feel you need lots of guns?

* Once you've asked questions that respectfully solicit the other person's views and feelings, try to find some area(s) of agreement. This does not mean you have to back down from your own stance or beliefs. It isn't necessary to agree with someone else's overall position; the idea is to try to find some element of their belief that seems reasonable and understandable--"it could be their goals, intentions, concerns, emotions," says Josh Davis, senior director of research at the Institute for Personal Leadership.

You can use questions to help locate that common ground. James Ryan, dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Education, often relies on the question: Couldn't we at least agree that ___? (You can fill in that blank with anything that seems like a reasonable point both sides can accept). "Asking 'Couldn't we at least agree?' is a way to push back against polarization and extremism, because it is an invitation to find some areas of consensus," according to Ryan. He told me he uses the question "whenever there's an impasse." For example, during heated discussions with fellow educators about different teaching methods, Ryan may ask something like, Couldn't we at least agree that everyone in this room wants to improve education for our students? "It lowers the temperature and refocuses the conversation on what we agree on, instead of what we disagree on," Ryan says.

* Challenge your conversation partner to shift his/her thinking, just a little. And challenge yourself to do likewise. Here are two great questions that can help with that: After you've inquired about the other person's views and shared your own, try asking: Can you find anything in your position that gives you pause? Then follow that up with: Is there anything in my position that you are attracted to or find interesting? Be sure to then turn those two questions on yourself. This forces both of you to acknowledge flaws in your own argument and strengths in the other person's argument. (Hat tip to radio host Tippett, who featured a slightly different version of these two questions in her book, Becoming Wise).

* If all else fails, try this trick. Using a technique adapted from an area of study known as " motivational interviewing," ask your companion to rate something the/she disagrees with on a scale of one to ten. For example: On a scale of 1 to 10, how much of global climate change theory do you think is true? (1 = None of it is true; 10 = All of it is true).

Researchers have found that even when people are rating something they disagree with or don't like, they rarely pick the lowest number. They're more likely to cite a low-range number like two or three. In which case, you can follow up by asking: Why did you pick two or three, instead of the lowest number? To answer that question, the person is almost forced to come up with something positive about your position-which means they are beginning to articulate the other side of their own argument.

* Take it slow. don't expect to reach total agreement on anything quickly. "Science Guy" Bill Nye reminds us that we must be patient with those whose views differ from our own. "We tend to say, 'Look at the facts! Change your mind!' But it can take people a couple of years to change their mind." In the meantime, Nye suggests that "the way to overcome that is to say, 'We're all in this together-let's learn about this together.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them." Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read this article because its something i wanted to know about. Asking someone a simple "How are you" or a "How was your day" is a sign of care. asking someone questions about them can make their day better. Replying with an answer can reveal a bit about you. it can reveal what you think of others, or what you think on someones opinion. asking yourself questions can help prevent you from doing something you'll regret later. Receiving help can also help you because you wont end up delusional. some people are gonna be honest and sometimes the honesty can hurt you, but it can help you improve on what you can do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them."

Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

If we're looking for solutions to this growing problem of polarization, we might want to start by asking each other more questions.

As I researched the power of questioning for The Book of Beautiful Questions, I talked to experts in various fields who tended to agree that by asking thoughtful, curious questions of another person, we can quickly build trust and rapport-even with people who might see the world differently than we do.

When questions are formulated and asked the right way, they can do a few key things to draw people closer together, says relationship researcher Arthur Aron. "First, just by asking questions, you're showing that you care about the other person," Aron explains. "Second, the question encourages that person to reveal something about themselves. And then that creates an opportunity for you to respond to what they are revealing."

Over the past few decades, Aron has conducted experiments in which strangers are paired up and instructed to ask one another a series of questions-and he has found it to be a surprisingly effective relationship-building tool. This has even been true when the question-asking experiments were conducted among people who might be expected to have very different perspectives and attitudes. For example, Aron has paired up questioners of different races, and in another study, he instructed police officers and local citizens to ask questions of one another.

After sharing questions and answers, the participants tended to like and understand each other better. Beyond that, Aron also found that the questioning exercises generated positive feelings that extended to the overall group-thus, the person who shared questions with a police officer was then apt to like all police more, and likewise for those who exchanged questions with someone from another race.

Of course, in using questions to better connect with someone, what you ask and how you ask it is critical. Questions worded poorly or asked in the wrong tone can be off-putting or even confrontational. To quote the radio interviewer and expert questioner Krista Tippett: "It's hard to transcend a combative question. But it's hard to resist a generous question. We all have it in us to formulate questions that invite honesty, dignity, and revelation." I think of such inviting questions as "bridge questions"-because they can help us traverse the divide that separates us from others.

Building a Question Bridge

If you'd like to try building a question bridge that might help you reach out to someone you've been having trouble connecting with (be it a co-worker you tend to disagree with or an uncle with sharply different political views), here are few points to keep in mind:

* Begin by asking yourself a question. Why am I trying to cross this particular divide? It's usually a worthwhile and admirable thing to attempt-but just make sure you're doing it for the "right" reasons. Those might include: trying to repair or strengthen a personal relationship that's important to you; trying to promote civil discourse and greater understanding among people within your circle at work, among friends, or at home; or, it could be that you want to broaden your own thinking.

But if you're planning to cross that divide so you can convert someone on the other side to your point of view, forget about it. The evidence suggests you're unlikely to succeed (no matter how many facts and talking points you're armed with)-and you may end up doing more harm than good to the relationship.

* Decide, at the outset, that you're going to be driven by curiosity. And that your "guiding question," throughout this interaction, will be: W hat can I learn from this person who sees things differently than I do?

Not only does curiosity help open up your own thinking to new information, it also signals to the other person that you're coming to this exchange seeking to understand, rather than to attack or judge. You can signal your curiosity in simple ways: foremost by listening intently, but also by prefacing your own questions with phrases like, "I'm curious about something," or "I was wondering about this, and maybe you can help me understand..."

* As you begin, be careful about allowing your own views and assumptions to influence your questions. Particularly when discussing hot-button issues, it's easy to fall into the trap of asking loaded questions such as, How on earth could you believe such a thing? In order to move the conversation forward, you should be asking questions that are free of assumptions, judgments, and veiled criticism, says Jeremy Hay, co-founder of Spaceship Media, a group that organizes and hosts conversations between groups with opposing viewpoints.

One of Spaceship Media's most recent projects, "Guns: An American Conversation," brought together people who disagree on that controversial subject; the participants communicated with each other for a month via a moderated Facebook Group. The moderators coached and steered participants away from asking questions that contained "embedded assumptions." For example, one anti-gun participant initially wanted to ask gun owners in the group, What are you so afraid of?, but was then coached to reframe the question to: Can you tell me more about why you feel you need lots of guns?

* Once you've asked questions that respectfully solicit the other person's views and feelings, try to find some area(s) of agreement. This does not mean you have to back down from your own stance or beliefs. It isn't necessary to agree with someone else's overall position; the idea is to try to find some element of their belief that seems reasonable and understandable--"it could be their goals, intentions, concerns, emotions," says Josh Davis, senior director of research at the Institute for Personal Leadership.

You can use questions to help locate that common ground. James Ryan, dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Education, often relies on the question: Couldn't we at least agree that ___? (You can fill in that blank with anything that seems like a reasonable point both sides can accept). "Asking 'Couldn't we at least agree?' is a way to push back against polarization and extremism, because it is an invitation to find some areas of consensus," according to Ryan. He told me he uses the question "whenever there's an impasse." For example, during heated discussions with fellow educators about different teaching methods, Ryan may ask something like, Couldn't we at least agree that everyone in this room wants to improve education for our students? "It lowers the temperature and refocuses the conversation on what we agree on, instead of what we disagree on," Ryan says.

* Challenge your conversation partner to shift his/her thinking, just a little. And challenge yourself to do likewise. Here are two great questions that can help with that: After you've inquired about the other person's views and shared your own, try asking: Can you find anything in your position that gives you pause? Then follow that up with: Is there anything in my position that you are attracted to or find interesting? Be sure to then turn those two questions on yourself. This forces both of you to acknowledge flaws in your own argument and strengths in the other person's argument. (Hat tip to radio host Tippett, who featured a slightly different version of these two questions in her book, Becoming Wise).

* If all else fails, try this trick. Using a technique adapted from an area of study known as " motivational interviewing," ask your companion to rate something the/she disagrees with on a scale of one to ten. For example: On a scale of 1 to 10, how much of global climate change theory do you think is true? (1 = None of it is true; 10 = All of it is true).

Researchers have found that even when people are rating something they disagree with or don't like, they rarely pick the lowest number. They're more likely to cite a low-range number like two or three. In which case, you can follow up by asking: Why did you pick two or three, instead of the lowest number? To answer that question, the person is almost forced to come up with something positive about your position-which means they are beginning to articulate the other side of their own argument.

* Take it slow. don't expect to reach total agreement on anything quickly. "Science Guy" Bill Nye reminds us that we must be patient with those whose views differ from our own. "We tend to say, 'Look at the facts! Change your mind!' But it can take people a couple of years to change their mind." In the meantime, Nye suggests that "the way to overcome that is to say, 'We're all in this together-let's learn about this together.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elie Wiesel once observed: "People are united by questions. It is the answers that divide them." Today, those "answers" and assertions we're all prone to spouting-often just opinions dressed up as certainties-seem to be dividing us more than ever, at town halls and holiday dinners.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read the article about the psychology behind hate simply because I thought the topic was interesting. Hate is a common word thrown around in daily life, but it was interesting to read about it on a deeper level. I learned through the article that there are many reasons for why someone might feel hatred, such as lack of compassion, the fear someone different from themselves, and the fact that they may be trying to project hatred they really feel towards themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, several members of a group calling itself "Respect the Flag" were sentenced to prison for terrorizing guests at the birthday party of an 8-year-old African-American girl in Georgia. Pointing a shotgun, they yelled racial slurs and death threats at guests, including children.

It wasn't an isolated incident. According to a recent study, there are at least 917 organized hate groups in the United States. The study, based on data collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and presented in their annual census of hate groups, looked at the presence of hate groups on Twitter. SPLC found that the number of likes and comments on hate group accounts grew by 900 percent in the last two years.

Why do we hate? The reasons are complex, but following are some of the factors that may play a role in helping us understand hate and, hopefully, work toward change.
Fear of "The Other"
According to A.J. Marsden, assistant professor of psychology and human services at Beacon College in Leesburg, Florida, one reason we hate is because we fear things that are different from us.

Behavioral researcher Patrick Wanis, cites the in-group out-group theory, which posits that when we feel threatened by perceived outsiders, we instinctively turn toward our in-group-those with whom we identify-as a survival mechanism. Wanis explains, "Hatred is driven by two key emotions of love and aggression: One love for the in-group-the group that is favored; and two, aggression for the out-group-the group that has been deemed as being different, dangerous, and a threat to the in-group."
Fear of Ourselves
According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, " I'm not terrible; you are."

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don't like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) - and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues.
Lack of Self-compassion
The antidote to hate is compassion - for others as well as ourselves. Self-compassion means that we accept the whole self. "If we find part of ourselves unacceptable, we tend to attack others in order to defend against the threat," says Reedy. "If we are okay with ourselves, we see others' behaviors as 'about them' and can respond with compassion. If I kept hate in my heart for [another], I would have to hate myself as well. It is only when we learn to hold ourselves with compassion that we may be able to demonstrate it toward others."
It fills a void
Psychologist Bernard Golden, author of Overcoming Destructive Anger: Strategies That Work, believes that when hate involves participation in a group, it may help foster a sense of connection and camaraderie that fills a void in one's identity. He describes hatred of individuals or groups as a way of distracting oneself from the more challenging and anxiety-provoking task of creating one's own identity:

"Acts of hate are attempts to distract oneself from feelings such as helplessness, powerlessness, injustice, inadequacy and shame. Hate is grounded in some sense of perceived threat. It is an attitude that can give rise to hostility and aggression toward individuals or groups. Like much of anger, it is a reaction to and distraction from some form of inner pain. The individual consumed by hate may believe that the only way to regain some sense of power over his or her pain is to preemptively strike out at others. In this context, each moment of hate is a temporary reprieve from inner suffering."
Societal and Cultural Factors
The answer to why we hate, according to Silvia Dutchevici, LCSW, president and founder of the Critical Therapy Center, lies not only in our psychological makeup or family history, but also in our cultural and political history. "We live in a war culture that promotes violence, in which competition is a way of life," she says. "We fear connecting because it requires us to reveal something about ourselves. We are taught to hate the enemy - meaning anyone different than us - which leaves little room for vulnerability and an exploration of hate through empathic discourse and understanding. In our current society, one is more ready to fight than to resolve conflict. Peace is seldom the option."
What Can We Do?
Hatred has to be learned, Golden says: "We are all born with the capacity for aggression as well as compassion. Which tendencies we embrace requires mindful choice by individuals, families, communities and our culture in general. The key to overcoming hate is education: at home, in schools, and in the community."

According to Dutchevici, facing the fear of being vulnerable and utterly human is what allows us to connect, to feel, and ultimately, to love. She suggests creating "cracks in the system." These cracks can be as simple as connecting to your neighbor, talking with a friend, starting a protest, or even going to therapy and connecting with an 'Other.' It is through these acts that one can understand hate and love."

In other words, compassion towards others is the true context that heals.
The SPLC encourages anyone who witnesses a hate crime - including hateful harassment or intimidation - to first report the incident to local authorities, then go to SPLC's #ReportHate intake page to continue the effort to track hate in the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, several members of a group calling itself "Respect the Flag" were sentenced to prison for terrorizing guests at the birthday party of an 8-year-old African-American girl in Georgia. Pointing a shotgun, they yelled racial slurs and death threats at guests, including children. It wasn't an isolated incident.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read about Tom Brady to learn about what might cause dislike. I thought he would be a good choice because he tends to be a person that people really like or really do not like. In reading about his life, it is clear that he has many accomplishments, which could make people jealous. Also, though, he is surrounded by a lot of secrets and some scandal. This could show that dislike can come when we feel as though someone is not being truthful or authentic. We want to feel as though we can trust who someone is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Who Is Tom Brady?

Tom Brady was drafted by the NFL's New England Patriots in 2000, and the star quarterback has won three NFL MVP awards, four Super Bowl MVP awards and a record six Super Bowl championships. In an incident known as "Deflategate," Brady was suspended after an investigation into the charges that he knew about the illegal deflation of footballs before an important playoff game in 2015. Despite sitting out the first four games of the 2016 season, Brady went on to lead the Patriots to a Super Bowl LI victory over the Atlanta Falcons and added to his collection with a historic win over the Los Angeles Rams in Super Bowl LIII. After 20 seasons in New England, Brady signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in March 2020. He is also known for his marriage to supermodel Gisele Bündchen.

Early Life and College Career

Thomas Edward Patrick Brady Jr. was born on August 3, 1977, in San Mateo, California, Brady excelled at both football and baseball at Junipero Serra High School. After graduating in 1995, Brady passed up a chance to play professional baseball to go to the University of Michigan.

Although a member of the school's football team, Brady did not spend much time on the field in his first two college seasons. In his junior year, however, he served as the starting quarterback. That season, Brady threw 350 passes for 2,636 yards. In his final season, he helped lead his team to an Orange Bowl victory.

NFL Career

Moving on to the NFL, Brady was drafted by the New England Patriots in the sixth round of the 2000 NFL draft. Initially, he served as a backup quarterback and played in only one game during his first season.

The 2001 season was a different story: After starting quarterback Drew Bledsoe was injured, Brady took over, proving himself a strong leader with a powerful arm. Anyone who doubted his abilities only had to look at the team's record, an impressive 11 wins to 3 losses in the 14 games that Brady started. In the postseason, he helped the team secure a win over the St. Louis Rams at Super Bowl XXXVI, and Brady received the game's MVP award.

Two years later, Brady led his team to another win at Super Bowl XXXVIII against the Carolina Panthers, for which he earned a second Super Bowl MVP award. And in the 2004 season, Brady again led the team to Super Bowl success, taking down the Philadelphia Eagles, 24-21.

In 2005, Brady signed a new six-year contract with the Patriots, and for the 2006 season, the team had a 12-4 record in the regular season.

Near-Undefeated Season and Injury

With star wide receiver Randy Moss in the fold, the Patriots developed one of the most explosive offenses in NFL history in 2007. Brady passed for a then-record 50 touchdown passes to pick up his first MVP award, and the Patriots ran roughshod over the rest of the league en route to an undefeated regular season, before suffering a gut-wrenching loss to the New York Giants at Super Bowl XLII.

During the first game of the 2008 season, Brady was quickly sidelined with a knee injury. He had several surgeries and extensive rehabilitation to repair the damage, forcing him to sit out the entire season. While some wondered whether the injury would be a career-ender, Brady came back to prove the doubters wrong. He signed a new contract with the team in 2010.

In the 2011 season, Brady pulled out all the stops, helping the team secure their place at Super Bowl XLVI. The Patriots once again battled the New York Giants in football's ultimate game. Before the big event, Brady's wife, model Gisele Bündchen, sent out an email to friends and family. She asked them to pray for Brady and to "envision him happy and fulfilled, experiencing with his team a victory." Unfortunately, these prayers went unanswered, as the Giants beat the Patriots, 21-17.

Brady made headlines in December 2012, following a close game between the New England Patriots and San Francisco 49ers. Brady had led the Patriots back from a 28-point deficit by the fourth quarter, but the 49ers ultimately took the game 41-34. Brady later commented on the outcome of the game, stating on WEEI-AM, "I'm really proud of the fact our guys never blinked an eye down 28 points against probably the best defense in the league."

'Deflategate' and Super Bowl XLIX Triumph

After the 2014 season, a new word entered the lexicon of Tom Brady lore: "Deflategate." After Brady's Patriots trounced the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game, it was discovered that several of the 12 game balls used by the Patriots were underinflated, one of them measuring 2 pounds per square inch below the minimum mark allowed by the NFL. Accusations of cheating followed, with Brady saying, "I didn't alter the balls in any way, [and] I would never have someone do something that was outside the rules."

Making the accusations more notable than they otherwise might be, in 2007 Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 for an incident in which the Patriots were caught videotaping the signals of an opposing coach, in direct violation of league rules.

Amid the media frenzy that accompanied the cheating accusations, Brady tried to stay focused on preparing to play the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl XLIX. En route to setting a Super Bowl record with 37 completions, Brady led his team back from a 10-point deficit to notch a thrilling 28-24 victory. With the win, he became the third quarterback to win four championships and the second to earn three Super Bowl MVP awards, cementing his standing as one of the greatest ever to play his position.

The subject of Deflategate returned to the headlines in May 2015, when a report released by investigator Ted Wells revealed that Brady was "generally aware" that a locker room attendant had tampered with footballs prior to the AFC Championship game. The quarterback was suspended for the first four games of the 2015 season, and Commissioner Roger Goodell upheld the punishment in July following an appeal. Brady and the NFL Players Association then filed a lawsuit to have the suspension overturned, their efforts proving successful in early September when a federal judge ruled in the quarterback's favor, on the grounds that the suspension was premised upon legal deficiencies.

The NFL appealed in 2016 and a judge overturned the decision to block Brady's suspension. Brady appealed again, but in July 2016 he said he would accept his suspension.

Historic Super Bowl LI Victory

Despite missing the first four games of the 2016 season, Brady helped the Patriots clinch another spot in the Super Bowl, defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers in the playoffs. Before the championship game, Brady told reporters that he wanted to win the game for his mother, who was suffering from an undisclosed illness. "She's the one I want to win for," Brady said.

With his mother in attendance at the NRG Stadium in Houston and millions of fans watching, Brady did not disappoint. In a thrilling game, the first that went into overtime in NFL history, Brady led the Patriots to a 34-28 victory over the Atlanta Falcons. With this historic win, Brady became the first quarterback in NFL history to take home five Super Bowl rings. He surpassed quarterbacks Joe Montana, one of his idols, and Terry Bradshaw, who both have four Super Bowl wins. He also was awarded his fourth Super Bowl MVP for leading a 25-point comeback and throwing a Super Bowl-record 466 passing yards. Super Bowl LI marked Brady's seventh appearance in the big game, also an NFL record.

More Records and Super Bowl LIII Win

Showing no signs of slowing down at age 40, Brady threw for an NFL-high 4,577 yards while guiding New England to a 13-3 record in 2017. He shrugged off an ESPN report of a supposed rift between the QB, his coach and Patriots owner Robert Kraft, but a more serious issue surfaced in mid-January 2018 when Brady hurt his throwing hand in practice days before the AFC Championship Game. Although the injury reportedly required more than 10 stitches to close, Brady proved able enough to outlast a robust defensive effort from the Jacksonville Jaguars, throwing for a late touchdown to complete the comeback win and claim an amazing eighth AFC title.

Brady lived up to his big-game reputation yet again in Super Bowl LII vs. the Philadelphia Eagles, surpassing his previous year's mark by throwing for a record 505 yards. However, the Patriots were forced to play catch-up nearly all evening, thanks to the inspired play of opposing quarterback Nick Foles, and Brady's last-second heave into the end zone was knocked away to seal the heartbreaking 41-33 defeat.

Even with the disappointing finish, there was little doubt that Brady remained the gold standard at the game's most important position, as illustrated by the NFL Network's designation of him as the league's top-ranked player heading into 2018. While there were signs of slippage - Brady threw 11 interceptions, his highest total since 2013 - the veteran QB continued to come up big when it counted, guiding New England to the Super Bowl for the ninth time in his remarkable career.

Unlike matchups from previous years, Super Bowl LIII between the Patriots and Los Angeles Rams was a low-scoring affair, and Brady didn't even throw a touchdown. Yet, there he was engineering a pair of fourth-quarter scoring drives that helped the Patriots pull away for the 13-3 win, giving the quarterback an incredible sixth Super Bowl victory - the most for any player, at any position.

Farewell to New England

Even with critics carefully scrutinizing the 42-year-old quarterback's play, New England began the 2019 season with eight consecutive wins. The Patriots lost three of their final six games, however, the fears raised by their rocky finish coming to fruition when they were sent packing in the first round of the playoffs by the Tennessee Titans.

Following a season in which his passer rating slipped to 88.0 and he failed to earn a Pro Bowl selection for the first time since his injury-marred 2008 campaign, Brady's NFL future became a source of debate for fans who wondered whether he would retire, re-sign with New England or play elsewhere.

On March 17, 2020, the QB answered one of those questions with a statement posted to his social media accounts that revealed his intention to continue his career elsewhere. Thanking the Patriots faithful, he wrote: "My children were born and raised here and you always embraced this California kid as one of your own. I love your commitment and loyalty to your teams and winning for our city means more than you will ever know."

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

On March 20, 2020, Brady announced that he had signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Two months later, he reunited with longtime New England tight end Rob Gronkowski, who came out of retirement to join his favorite QB in Tampa Bay.

Following a loss to the New Orleans Saints in the 2020 NFL season opener, Brady got his team back on track with three consecutive wins, the last of those powered by an impressive five-touchdown performance. A midseason lull included a crushing 38-3 loss to the Saints, but Brady again righted the ship, closing the regular season with four straight wins to propel Tampa Bay back into the playoffs for the first time in 13 years.

After throwing for 381 yards and two touchdowns in a January 2021 Wild Card win over Washington, Brady threw for two more scores to help Tampa Bay upset the Saints and advance to a conference title game for the 14th time in his career. The following week, the 43-year-old overcame three interceptions to engineer another upset, this time over the Green Bay Packers and became the fourth quarterback to lead two different teams to the Super Bowl.

Personal Life

Along with being a football champion, Brady was chosen as one of People magazine's "50 Most Beautiful People" in 2002 and hosted the popular comedy show Saturday Night Live in 2005.

He and longtime girlfriend Bridget Moynahan split up in late 2006. The next year, she gave birth to their son, John Edward Thomas Moynahan, in August. Brady married Bündchen in February of 2009. The couple welcomed a son named Benjamin in December of that same year and a daughter, Vivian, born in 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tom Brady was drafted by the NFL's New England Patriots in 2000, and the star quarterback has won three NFL MVP awards, four Super Bowl MVP awards and a record six Super Bowl championships. In an incident known as "Deflategate," Brady was suspended after an investigation into the charges that he knew about the illegal deflation of footballs before an important playoff game in 2015.