All posts by Ian Reifowitz

Ian Reifowitz is the author of Obama’s America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity. Twitter: @IanReifowitz
 
Blog

Muslims Defend Free Speech of Anti-Muslim Extremist


What a difference seven years makes. In 2006, violent protests exploded across Muslim societies in the Middle East and Africa, resulting in the deaths of at least 200 people. What sparked the riots was the publication of a series of cartoons in a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, that included images — some critical, others benign — of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. (Many Sunni Muslims find any depiction of Muhammad’s image to be blasphemous.) The Islamic Society in Denmark played a key role in stirring up worldwide Muslim anger over the cartoons.

Jump ahead to the present. A wide array of Danish Muslim leaders from various organizations are firmly defending the free-speech rights of Lars Hedegaard, a polemicist who can perhaps charitably be described as a brutally harsh critic of their religion. Hope Not Hate, a British antiracist group, identified Hedegaard as one of the six leading anti-Muslim figures in Europe.

On February 5, Hedegaard was the target of an attempted assassination when  someone dressed as a postal worker shot at him and barely missed his head. In response, Danes at first united in outrage against political violence. But then, as more of Hedegaard’s writings and remarks became known, some Danes wondered whether he had brought this attack on himself.  “I think that Hedegaard wanted this conflict,” said Mikael Rothstein, a scholar of religious history at the University of Copenhagen. “Brutal words can be as strong as the brutal physical act of violence.”

Then the Muslim voices emerged. And they spoke with one voice: freedom of speech must be defended. Minhaj-ul-Quran International helped put together a protest in Copenhagen to condemn the assassination attempt on Hedegaard. As one Danish-born Muslim put it: “We don’t defend Hedegaard’s views but do defend his right to speak. He can say what he wants.” The Islamic Society of Denmark not only denounced the attack and defended free speech, they also said that they regretted what they had done after the publication of the cartoons seven years ago.

So far Hedegaard has not been moved by the outpouring of Muslim support for him and his freedoms. He declares that Muslims in Denmark will never embrace their new homeland’s belief in free expression. “There is no such thing as ‘moderate’ Islam, and there never has been,” Hedegaard said. “There may be shades of opinion among Muslims, but as a totalitarian system of thought, Islam has remained unchanged for at least 1,200 years.”

But Hedegaard is an anti-Muslim extremist, so his attitude is unsurprising. More reasonable observers recognize that Muslims in Denmark are taking this opportunity to show that they want to be both Muslims and Danes — that they can respect Danish political values while remaining true to their faith. Muslims “have changed their approach,” said Karen Haekkerup, Denmark’s minister for social affairs and integration. She considers their actions “a good sign.”

Diversity isn’t easy. It’s even harder in countries like Denmark that have, until recently, had very few immigrants from Muslim countries. When you add religion to the mix of language and culture, it’s still harder. Throw in the tensions between Muslims and the West in a post-9/11 world, and now you’re talking about a really daunting challenge. But it is a challenge Europeans, Americans, and every diverse society must overcome. And seeing this kind of progress in Denmark, coming from some of the same people who were at the center of fomenting violence in 2006 — well, that gives me reason to hope.

Ian Reifowitz is the author of Obama’s America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity. Twitter: @IanReifowitz

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
Photo by baaker.
Blog

Is America ‘a Racist Country’?


Anti-Racism Protest Photo
Photo by baaker.

“America is a racist country,” Mychal Denzel Smith wrote earlier this month in an article at the Nation. Smith called on whites to acknowledge racism’s pervasiveness and eliminate it. I won’t debate the accuracy of Smith’s assessment of what America is, and I don’t know whether or not he was using hyperbole to make his point. Either way, however, his demand that white people admit its truth as part of their pledge to fight racism only discourages some of them from doing what the article’s title rightly demands, to “give up racism.”

Smith reduces a complex topic to a yes-no question: is America racist? Sixty years ago racial discrimination was legal; most blacks were barred from voting and sending their children to integrated schools. Now, we have a black First Family. As Smith indicates, that does not mean racism has disappeared. But it does mean a simplistic approach to American racism is inadequate.

Was America racist in 1850? Yes. Was America racist in 1950? Yes. Is America racist today? I won’t say “no,” but a simple “yes,” whatever the substance behind it, ignores America’s progress. Doing so ensures that many of the whites Smith wants to reach will ignore his message, and I believe there is a more effective way to convince them.

Smith is correct that whites must recognize that racism profoundly affects us all, privileging some and disadvantaging others in countless, often unseen ways. Although Barack Obama certainly agrees, in The Audacity of Hope  he acknowledged that even among racial progressives, “rightly or wrongly, white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America.”

In his 2008 “race speech,” President Obama spoke about the “progress” America has made on racism, which shows that “America can change.” But, he said, making continued progress requires “the white community” to acknowledge that “what ails the African American community does not just exist in the minds of black people.” Smith argues the same.

Both Smith and Obama detail the reality of racism, the lasting effects of past discrimination, and the continuation of discrimination today. But first praising America’s progress likely helped make some whites more open to hearing Obama’s second message, one that also aligns with Smith’s: whites must not only acknowledge racism’s existence, but take action to address it.

A point on which President Obama and Smith differ is in their construction of white privilege. Obama noted that many working-class and middle-income whites don’t feel “particularly privileged by their race.” He warned against characterizing white resentment over policies like affirmative action as “misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns.” Smith, however, simply dismissed whites who characterize these policies as “reverse racism.”

By showing empathy for the perspectives of resentful whites, Obama demonstrated a more nuanced approach that has greater potential to convince economically vulnerable whites to rethink their views on racism. Smith, on the other hand, tells these whites to surrender privileges they may not see. It’s not about who is right or wrong; it’s about what will work.

Smith is absolutely right about what actions white people need to take — such as listening to people of color — and his brand of truth-telling is a valuable part of the multifaceted battle against racism. Smith’s article may be a terrific way to motivate whites who already agree with him, but we need to do more than preach to the choir.

In Chicago, the day after Smith’s article was published, President Obama noted: “We all share a responsibility to move this country closer to our founding vision.” He emphasized that every American should have an equal opportunity to succeed. Convincing whites to give up racism doesn’t mean soft-pedaling its realities. It just means taking a cue from a black man who won enough white votes to make him president of the United States. Twice.

Ian Reifowitz is the author of Obama’s America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity. Twitter: @IanReifowitz

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

New Direction for Israel?


400px-Tzipi_Livni_-_Press_conferenceDare we dream? After seeing his conservative party alliance shrink from forty-two to thirty-one seats in last month’s elections, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now trying to put together a parliamentary majority. Did these losses chasten him? Will they lead to a real change in his policies? He has certainly made a splash with his first move. His selection of long-time political foe Tzipi Livni as justice minister and, more importantly, as head of the government’s official negotiating team (should negotiations ever resume) with the Palestinians, is being praised by some as a potentially important shift and dismissed by others as window dressing.

Livni began her career on the right, in Netanyahu’s Likud party, but moved leftward on the Palestinian issue and became one of the founding members of the centrist Kadima party in 2005, serving as foreign minister and deputy prime minister. Under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, she headed the team that negotiated directly with the Palestinian Authority and, while it did not succeed, her team came far closer to a final peace agreement than Netanyahu’s government has thus far. Later Livni became head of Kadima before being ousted and leaving in 2012.

Last November she formed Hatnuah, another centrist party that included some from Kadima as well as two former leaders of the Labor Party. Hatnuah won six seats in the January election and has now become the first party to join Netanyahu’s coalition government. Upon her selection, Livni said that she wouldn’t be joining the government if she didn’t “trust” that Netanyahu was serious in his “commitment to the peace process.”

There are few issues more gut-wrenching to follow than the matter of Israel-Palestine. As a Jew, I feel a personal stake in Israel’s survival. As a historian (who teaches a class on the topic), I am well aware of the deeply held beliefs, opportunities for peace missed, and, yes, immoral actions taken by both sides. As an American, I know how important it would be for my country’s interests and security if the Israelis and Palestinians could come to a final peace agreement. And as a human being, I want suffering reduced wherever possible, and for people to be able to live their lives with dignity, justice, freedom, and security wherever possible.

Watching events unfold in Israel-Palestine in recent years has not given me much hope. Yet even after the anguish I felt hearing about Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination in 1995, and after the Camp David talks in 2000 failed to produce an agreement, and after countless other disappointments and tragedies, I still can’t give up on the idea that these two peoples can make peace.

So that’s where I’m at when I think about what it means that the ultra-hawkish Netanyahu has turned over the “peace portfolio” to someone like Livni, who most observers see as far more committed to pursuing a peace treaty than the Netanyahu of recent years. Apparently, leaders of the Israeli settler movement think that Livni’s new position in the cabinet is a bad thing for their interests, and for Israel’s, as they define them. The far-right Jewish Home party — which rejects the idea of a Palestinian state — also hates Livni’s appointment. As someone who cares about that country, my thinking is that anything the settler leaders or the hard-right parties think is bad has a pretty good chance of being good for Israel. The reaction from Palestinian leaders to Livni’s appointment has been essentially mute, as they are clearly waiting to see the whole of Netanyahu’s coalition.

In Israel-Palestine, predicting the failure of peace talks has always been a safe bet. My head tells me that this is unlikely to change anytime soon, despite what I believe is Livni’s serious desire for a real deal, a desire I also believe is matched by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and moderate colleagues like Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. As for my heart — well, it’s been broken enough times on this issue that I should know better. But despite this, and despite the fact that Livni joining the Israeli cabinet doesn’t change the fact that the Palestinians also bear responsibility for previous failures as well as the current stalemate, I have some rational basis for my hopes.

Perhaps Netanyahu has enough credibility on the right to actually bring reasonable hawks around to supporting the concessions necessary to make peace, to do what Nixon did in going to China and meeting with Chairman Mao. Netanyahu’s appointment of Livni to lead his negotiating team is at least a signal that he intends to make a serious effort on that front. By no means am I deeply optimistic. But at least I’m less pessimistic than I was before the elections. At this point, that’s real progress.

Ian Reifowitz is the author of Obama’s America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity. Twitter: @IanReifowitz

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

How Do Immigrants Become Americans?

By Ian Reifowitz

How do diverse societies integrate newcomers? How do they balance the need to develop a sense of community with the desire to maintain one’s ancestral culture? Every multiethnic society faces these questions, and those that fail to agree on an approach are doomed to fall apart. The United States has been grappling with these questions from the first day of its existence, and its approaches have evolved over time.

The long-standing perception in America is that immigrants a century ago were routinely stripped of their ethnic ties and “melted” down to become “100% American,” demonstrating loyal only to their country of residence and becoming carbon copies of the Anglo American mainstream. In Patriotic Pluralism: Americanization Education and European Immigrants, historian Jeffrey Mirel challenges this view by looking at the civic instruction European immigrants received in the first half of the twentieth century.

As part of Mirel’s study, he offers a powerful argument on a vital question: what is the nature of nationalism and national identity? He emphasizes the contrast between civic and ethnic nationalists in the United States by way of the debate over whether those from outside Anglo-Nordic ethnic backgrounds could ever become “true” Americans, and whether Americanness was limited to those of the “right” ancestry.

Within the civic nationalist camp, Mirel describes three different positions on how to integrate immigrants: assimilationists who demand that immigrants completely abandon their cultural heritage in favor of a “100% American” identity, cultural pluralists who encourage immigrants to adopt a “hyphenated” identity, and amalgamationists who advocate the creation of a singular American identity through interethnic marriage. He argues that these three civic nationalist groups differ only by degree, but are all distinct from the ethnic nationalist positions on the most important question: whether blood defines the boundaries of American identity.

After 1930, the demand for full assimilation weakened as native-born Americans came to realize that showing respect for immigrants’ desire to honor the culture of their forebears was a more effective way to achieve Americanization. The foreign language press proved a most successful avenue.

Before they could speak English, foreign language newspapers taught immigrants “how to negotiate and adapt to American life and culture.” The articles encouraged loyalty to America and inculcated American ideals, such as democracy, the rule of law, and loyalty to the United States. The writers also emphasized the belief that American ideals centered on equality and a respect for different perspectives. The press combined the pluralism of the pluralists with the powerful patriotism of the assimilationists. This concept worked for them then and, arguably, continues to do so for immigrants today.

As a someone who has long studied the issue of national identity formation in multiethnic societies, I found Mirel’s book incredibly stimulating and well-argued. It could have been a narrow study of what the foreign language press had to say about Americanization education, but it is much richer and deeper. Mirel offers serious exploration of a question that is at the center of our country’s history, present, and future: how do we become Americans?

President Barack Obama described the process of Americanization as a kind of “gumbo” where new ingredients added by the chef influence the taste of the soup, even as they are changed significantly by what they’ve been dropped into. I’m certain that Mirel and Obama would agree that Americanization works best when it is shaped both by newcomers and those who are native-born. That’s how you build a community, a nation, out of a diverse population.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Second-Generation Success

By Ian Reifowitz

We got some very good news recently about the twenty million adults in this country who were born here and are the children of immigrants. A comprehensive report from the Pew Research Center finds that this second generation is doing significantly better than today’s first-generation immigrants in terms of education, home ownership rate, percentage living below the poverty line, and median income. Surprisingly, the second generation even matches the economic success of Americans overall, while graduating from college at higher rates than the U.S. average. (This reflects the high college-graduation rate of Asian Americans, who make up a larger proportion of second-generation immigrants than the general population).

Additionally, the Pew survey found that, compared to immigrants, second generation Americans have much higher percentages that are proficient in English (including nine-tenths of both Hispanic and Asian Americans), are more likely to have friends and marry outside the boundaries of their ancestral group, to believe that relations between their group and other Americans are good, and to consider themselves a “typical American.” (To clarify, this survey is not comparing second-generation immigrants and their own parents, but today’s entire adult population of immigrants within two generations of arriving in America.) In another interesting finding, three-quarters of first and second generation Hispanic and Asian Americans believe that hard work is enough to ensure success in most cases, compared to 58 percent of Americans overall. Both generations of both ethnic groups are also more politically liberal and less Republican-leaning than the general population, countering the myth that conservatives have a monopoly on the belief in hard work.

One of the great fallacies expressed by some in the immigration debate today is that contemporary immigrants just aren’t assimilating or Americanizing in the way the “good old” immigrants did in the Ellis Island generations of the early twentieth century. Some of that, of course, reflects nostalgia for those immigrants, who are in many cases the grandparents or great-grandparents of the people expressing such a belief. The reality, as this Pew report and other similar studies make clear, is that the post-1965 immigrants are doing their part. By the second generation, they are learning English, and not just those from Asia but those from Spanish-speaking countries as well (typically, the criticism that immigrants and their children aren’t learning English and aren’t integrating is aimed at Hispanic Americans). They are identifying in large numbers not only as Americans but as “typical Americans,” and they are marrying and having friends outside their ethnic group in numbers even larger than the overall population.

There have long been, and will continue to be, anti-immigration activists who stoke fears about separatist immigrants and the Balkanization of our society, especially as our population continues to grow less and less white. I do believe it is vital that America has a unifying national identity and that immigrants feel a sense of community with their fellow Americans — and vice versa. And by no means is everyone who expresses concerns about how well we’re doing on those fronts is a bigot or a demagogue. In my next post I’ll be writing some more about the issues of integration and “Americanization” and how this country approached them in the early twentieth century. But this report from Pew about second-generation immigrants truly is welcome. It confirms that even as our immigrant population has shifted from being overwhelmingly European to predominantly Asian and Hispanic in origin, we are continuing to succeed in integrating newcomers in our culture as well as our economy.

One of the most valuable things America can do is show the world that a society made up of people from every corner of the globe — where in a generation or two no race will be a majority — can be a place where people can choose to preserve their ancestral cultures even as they truly become one people as Americans. We can serve as an alternative model to societies that reject pluralism, that look to suppress dissent and diversity because their majority believes its culture or beliefs are the only acceptable ones. One report doesn’t mean the task has been accomplished. But it does mean that, on an issue of paramount importance for us and for the world, we are on our way.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Judging Lincoln: Thoughts on His Birthday


215px-Lincoln_2012_Teaser_PosterAbraham Lincoln’s 204th birthday is upon us. Although the sixteenth President has never receded from our public consciousness, Steven Spielberg’s recent movie Lincoln has brought him to the front of our minds perhaps more than at any point in recent decades. Most Americans celebrate the man — certainly Spielberg does. But there are some who do not. I’d like to explore some dissenting views in a serious way and offer my own assessment of Lincoln and his historical legacy.

Clearly, the positive view of Lincoln as “The Great Emancipator” predominates in our society and culture, for reasons that are quite well known even to those who know relatively little about American history. There are some, however, who condemn Lincoln’s “tyrannical behavior in trashing the Constitution and waging war on civilians in violation of international law and codes of morality.” While one can seriously debate the constitutionality of Lincoln’s actions on, say, the suspension of habeas corpus, the “Lincoln as Tyrant” viewpoint, typically associated with neo-Confederate sympathies, does not offer well-substantiated analyses of his political career. These partisans worship the Old South and see Lincoln as the man who destroyed it.

But there is another perspective on Lincoln I want to explore in more depth, namely one that criticizes his views on race, which, by today’s standards, certainly reflect real bigotry toward blacks. Understanding Lincoln completely means understanding that he did, for example, publicly support a plan to send freed slaves back to Africa or elsewhere. There are numerous examples demonstrating that he did not view blacks and whites as equals. For more on this view, one can examine Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream by Lerone Bennett Jr. (Interestingly, many neo-Confederate types such as Thomas DiLorenzo often cite Bennett to highlight these criticisms as well, even though their most righteous anger derives from Lincoln’s supposed tyranny. I won’t speculate as to how much they actually care about Lincoln’s racial prejudices.) Reviews of the book by Eric Foner and James McPherson, arguably the two leading scholars of the Civil War/Reconstruction era over the past fifty years, point out significant problems with Bennett’s interpretation as well as some factual errors. Foner’s own balanced take on Lincoln appears in his book The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.

Although Foner and other scholars have noted Lincoln’s use of the word “deportation” in his 1862 State of the Union address, that address also made clear that any such plan required the “consent of the people to be deported.” Such a statement suggests the word meant something different in those days than it does today (irrespective of Mitt Romney’s notion of undocumented immigrants “self-deporting“). Additionally, in a cabinet meeting that September Lincoln stated clearly that any colonization plan had to be “voluntary and without expense to themselves.”

Nevertheless, the views expressed in Bennett’s work also resonate among those who are skeptical of Lincoln’s legacy for other reasons, including some African Americans. Bennett was an editor at Ebony for decades and published countless articles — including the 1968 essay “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?” — that laid out some of the themes that later became Forced Into Glory. A friend of mine, a scholar and activist whom I respect greatly, told me essentially that because of the connection she feels toward her ancestors, whom Lincoln viewed as inferior, she cannot honor him as a historical figure. This got me thinking about my own view of Lincoln.

Ultimately, I would argue that the ways Lincoln went against the bigotry of most whites in his day should matter more than the ways he reflected it. More broadly, few major historical figures have done or said nothing that deserves criticism, certainly not any historical figure who has exercised governmental authority. But in Lincoln’s case, surely the good of what he did outweighs the bad. In addition to the actions he took to help end slavery as president, the words he uttered at Gettysburg placed equality at the center of American ideals in a way no other speech has, as historian Garry Wills has argued in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Lincoln at Gettysburg. Did the sixteenth president mean equality the way most of us do in the present? No. Today, his attitudes would be retrograde. But he didn’t live today. For lack of a better term, when looking at history we should give “credit” to those — especially those leaders — who were more egalitarian than the norm in their own time and, more importantly, acted on their (relative) egalitarianism to make things better for people. We should not expect them to be egalitarian in 2013 terms and mark them down where they fall short.

Still, the matter of my friend’s ancestors bothered me. Could I honor someone who viewed my ancestors as less than equal, even if that person had done great things, even for them directly? I had to go outside my own box to grapple with this. I came to the question of Martin Luther King Jr. and gay rights. It’s not exactly the same thing as Lincoln and his view of African Americans, but it offers some reasonable parallels. I did a bit of research and found this:

The only time King publicly mentions homosexuality was in 1958 while answering a question in his advice column in Ebony magazine in which a boy asked:

“I am a boy. But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

King answered: “Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

Rev. King did not condemn homosexuality in terms anywhere near as harsh as many contemporary religious leaders. Nevertheless, he clearly identified homosexuality as a “problem” that needed to be solved, as well as one that results from culture rather than something innate to a person. From a policy perspective, it is virtually impossible that he would have, at that time or at any point before his assassination in 1968, embraced gay marriage. One could thus make an argument that because of Rev. King’s views on homosexuality, one cannot view him positively as a historical figure. I could not accept such an argument. It does not make sense to judge his views based on today’s standards, and such a view ignores the larger importance of what he did for equality, as well as how those actions ultimately benefited the LGBT community. We also don’t know how Rev. King’s views on this issue might have evolved over time, had he been given the chance.

The same points apply to Lincoln and his views on race. His views did evolve over time, and he even called for a limited voting franchise for black males in his final public speech before his own assassination. In response to that final speech, John Wilkes Booth declared to a friend: “That means n—— citizenship. Now, by God, I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Who knows how much further Lincoln would have evolved after 1865? For example, it seems impossible that Lincoln would have opposed the Fifteenth Amendment, passed in 1870, that banned any race-based restrictions on voting rights.

Yes, it is important to know the full picture of Lincoln. That’s what history is about, not hero worship. Nevertheless, I would argue that it’s unfair to look at history solely from the perspective of one’s own ancestors because doing so implies that what a historical figure does or believes regarding one’s own ancestors (broadly defined) matters more than what that person has done or thought regarding all human beings. Additionally, judging people solely on how their views compare to those of the present is equally unhelpful. Who knows how people in 200 years will judge even our most egalitarian ideas today? Whether we are talking about Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, or any historical figure, a person need not be perfect in order to be great.

Ian Reifowitz is the author of Obama’s America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity. Twitter: @IanReifowitz

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
New York
Blog

Charles Albert Poland’s Sacrifice


Charles Albert Poland Jr. You may not know his name, but you probably know what he did. More of us likely know the name of Jimmy Lee Dykes, the anti-government “survivalist” who murdered Poland, kidnapped a five-year-old boy, and held him for six days before himself being killed by FBI agents Monday. The boy was recovered unharmed. Dykes’ name and photo have been everywhere.

A Vietnam veteran, Poland drove a school bus in Dale County, Alabama, until January 29, the day Dykes boarded that bus and told him to surrender two of the children who were in his care. Poland knew Dykes reasonably well, having recently given him a present of homemade jam and eggs. Rather than accede to Dykes’ demand, Poland instead opened the emergency door, located at the bus’s rear, and put himself between the children and the assailant. Dykes shot Poland four times, killing him, while twenty-one children escaped out the back. Although the kidnapped boy did ultimately survive his ordeal, one child on the bus stated that the gunman “said he was going to kill us — going to kill us all.”

This is my first post as a staff blogger here at In The Fray. The magazine’s ideals and goals are profound ones. We hope to help readers come to “better understand the experiences and perspectives of other people” — to develop, in a word, empathy. We hope to bring stories to your attention that explore the various forms such understanding can take. We hope empathy can inspire you to take action to make a difference in the lives of others. That’s what Poland did.

I don’t know what inspired Poland to sacrifice his life in the hope that other people’s children might live. I do know that his sacrifice represents empathy of the highest order. He could have simply done what he was told, and hoped for the best for the two children he’d turned over. He could have thought first about how best to ensure his own survival. Instead he thought about others. I can’t put into words the gratitude I’d feel if Poland gave his life to save my children.

Some people juxtapose empathy and action, arguing that the former is simply feeling someone else’s pain as opposed to doing something about it. However, I would argue that empathy is often a necessary precursor to action, motivating us to act in the first place. Thankfully, very few of us will be put into a position where we have the ability to save the lives of others by sacrificing our own. I’ll be writing about examples of people taking action to help others, or examples of inequality or injustice that call out for such action.

But I wanted to start by trying to honor a man whose actions, whose empathy for children who needed his help, cannot be adequately honored simply by words. Let us all be inspired by his sacrifice to do more for others who need our help, whether they live in our own neighborhood or halfway across the world. That’s how we best honor Charles Albert Poland Jr.

Ian Reifowitz is the author of Obama’s America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity. Twitter: @IanReifowitz

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also: