Boudhanath in Kathmandu, Nepal, by Mandy Van Deven.

Curing Fernweh with Imagination

Photo of Boudhanath in Kathmandu, Nepal
Boudhanath in Kathmandu, Nepal. Mandy Van Deven

Fernweh: (n.) an ache for distant places; the craving for travel

On Christmas Eve in 2008, I watched the sunset at Boudhanath in Kathmandu, Nepal, while hundreds of red-cloaked Buddhist monks chanted evening prayers and others circumambulated the stupa in silent meditation. In a café overlooking the scene, my partner and I sipped hot coffee and chatted with a group of monks-in-training, five British guys and one woman, who had come down to the city from a monastery in the Himalayas to indulge in earthly pleasures: beer, rum, coffee, and cigarettes.

As darkness fell, the stupa was lit up with strings of colored lights. It was a pluralistic moment that moved my partner and me, in spite of our devout agnosticism, and we resolved to spend every Christmas thereafter in a place we’d never been. (After all, we’d spent the previous Christmas Eve at the Poush Mela in Shantiniketan, West Bengal, India.)

Despite our enjoying the following Christmas Eve watching an American guitar player cover Swedish pop songs in an Irish pub in Bangkok — I joined in at one point and (badly) played tambourine to round out “Dancing Queen” — my partner and I were unable to see our travelphilic holiday commitment through. My mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer the following year, and the thrill of spending Christmas Eve of 2010 in the boondocks where I grew up in Georgia was that my mom had lived to experience it — though not 2011.

We fell on hard financial times for the last two Christmases, but satisfied ourselves by exploring places we’d never been in our adoptive home of New York City. Now, however, we’ve set our sites on a 2013 Christmas Eve in a city like Istanbul, Reykjavík, or Buenos Aires. Inshallah, we will see this through.

Until then, I am sating a debilitating case of fernweh by reading about other people’s journeys. In today’s piece, The Crossing, Frank Bures writes about traveling to a corner of the world few tourists have ever seen. In the tiny African nation of Djibouti, Bures overcomes his own fernweh in search of a fascinating place called Bab al-Mandeb. His story reminded me that sometimes the cure for what ails us can be found somewhere we carry with us: our own imaginations.

Mandy Van Deven was previously In The Fray’s managing editor. Site: mandyvandeven.com | Twitter: @mandyvandeven

 

The Crossing

When I first read about Bab al-Mandeb — the “Gate of Tears,” where the Red Sea narrows and powerful ocean currents have sunk countless ships over the ages — I knew I wanted to go there. I wanted to be where it all began: where the human race left Africa, spreading out into the world until they filled every corner of it. [From Nowhere magazine]

Dated photo of the sea

Standing on the edge of the Red Sea 60,000 years ago, the first people looked across the water, saw mountains rising above the horizon, and decided to go there. No one knows how they crossed the water, but they did. Somehow, this small band of as few as 150 individuals made their way from Africa to Arabia — from what is now the tiny country of Djibouti on one side, to the troubled nation of Yemen on the other. After that, they kept going. They followed the shorelines. They went inland. They scaled mountains and crossed plains. They spread out into the world until they filled every corner of it.

They, of course, were us.

Bab al-Mandeb is thought to be the place they crossed. It is the “Gate of Tears,” where the Red Sea narrows and powerful ocean currents have sunk countless ships over the ages. But back when those first people crossed, the oceans would have been 400 feet lower, so instead of seventeen miles of water there would have been just seven, with islands along the way. Today the islands are submerged and the ends of the strait reach out to each other like a continental version of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam.

When I first read about this, I found the place on a map. The language those people spoke, the clothes they wore, the thoughts they had — those are all gone forever. But the place is still there, and I knew I wanted to go there. I wanted to be where it all began.

The problem was I couldn’t think of any good excuse to go to Djibouti. It’s a hot, dry, poor country in the middle of nowhere whose only export is people on their way out. Almost all the information I could find told how to get from Djibouti to someplace else.

Then one day a few years ago, I heard about the Bridge of the Horns, a massive project that aimed to span the Red Sea, linking Africa and Arabia in a way they had never been before. It was announced with great ceremony at a 2008 press conference in Djibouti, and those present were taken aback by the audacity of the scheme. The bridge would be eighteen miles long with 100,000 cars crossing it daily on a six-lane highway, as well as 50,000 rail passengers and four light-rail lines. There would be pipelines for water and oil. At each end, a new city would be constructed — a “City of Light” — to be populated by 2.5 million people on the Djiboutian side, with 4.5 million on the Yemeni side.

It was a bold, beautiful vision. It would create millions of jobs. It would bring commerce, peace, and prosperity. It would funnel a massive amount of traffic safely over the troubled waters below.

It was also absurd. Eco-cities in Djibouti? Thirty-six million cars a year? Then again, I had been to Dubai, just across the Arabian Peninsula, where in thirty years they’d turned a tiny pearl-diving village into a global financial hub and home to the world’s tallest building. I had seen what could emerge from a pile of sand: shopping malls, theme parks, man-made archipelagos.

So who knew? Bab al-Mandeb was already a place I wanted to go. It was a hole in my imagination I needed to fill. For several years, I pitched the story before I finally managed to get an assignment to write about the Bridge of the Horns. The money would only cover part of the costs. But it would be just enough to get me there.

 

Djibouti Stamp

It was 3 a.m. when my plane landed in Djibouti City, and I had no idea where I was going to stay. There was little travelers’ information online, and even my Lonely Planet devoted just twelve pages to the country, which began: “Never heard of Djibouti? Don’t feel bad.”

At immigration, the official stared at my passport and asked several times, “Tourism?” as if he couldn’t believe it. I nodded and said, “Yes, tourism,” which was true enough. He shrugged, stamped my passport, and waved me through.

Outside there was one taxi in the parking lot. The driver asked me where I wanted to go and I blurted out “Sheraton.” He nodded knowingly. We pulled out of the parking lot and sped into city. As we drove past the beach, I saw hundreds of people lying on the sand, their silhouettes visible in the pale blue moonlight. I made a mental note: if all else fails, sleep on the beach.

At the Sheraton, I walked to the front desk, set down my bag, and asked how much a room was. The man told me it would be close to $200.

“That’s a little out of my budget,” I said. “Do you mind if I wait here till it’s light?”

“No problem,” he said, and pointed to the couches in the lobby.

When I woke several hours later, the sun had risen and the room was full of German soldiers greeting each other with “Morgen” and “Morgen.” They ignored me as they watched TV and drank their coffee before heading out to report for duty.

By the time they left, the city seemed to be rousing itself, so I shouldered my pack, walked out into the heat, and entered what had once been dubbed the “Hell of Africa.”

For a place where there isn’t much to do, Djibouti City is insanely expensive. This is partly because the country is a rocky desert, and everything has to be imported. As one scholar noted, the country has “virtually no arable land, no permanent fresh water source, no significant mineral resources, very little vegetation, an average daily temperature of 34°C [93°F], and severe, persistent drought.” Even the electricity was rumored to come from two discarded ship engines outside town.

Djibouti has been this way from the beginning. The site of the city was chosen by the French in the 1880s for its location, and to this day its location is its main asset. Sitting on one of the world’s most important shipping channels, through which much of the world’s oil flows, it is an island of relative stability surrounded by turmoil.

In fact, its geography has been called Djibouti’s “unusual resource curse,” because almost every country in the world wants a military base there. As a result, the country has become a kind of geopolitical slumlord, charging exorbitant amounts to host fighting forces from across the globe, including 2,900 French troops, 1,500 Americans, 800 Germans, 50 Spanish, and 180 Japanese (who operate Japan’s first overseas military base since World War II). Every day, fighter jets and heavy aircraft roar through the sky. At the airport, you can sit in the departure lounge and watch drones taxiing across Camp Lemonnier, the U.S. military base.

All of which means there is no budget-travel scene, because most foreigners are here on an expense account. Nonetheless, my first day I did manage to find a place to couch surf for a few days, in an extra room at an Internet café. The following day, after that was settled, I headed to town to start my search.

At the very center of Djibouti City is Menelik Square, an open place in what was once the “European Quarter” of town. It’s surrounded by old colonial-Moorish buildings that look like they might have been glorious in another era. These days, many of the buildings around town are empty and their facades serve as makeshift urinals. As the heat of the day rises, the smell of baking urine wafts through the streets. The city has a rundown, forgotten look that makes it feel like something in a Graham Greene novel. Strolling the streets, I walked past Pakistani barbers, Yemeni electronics dealers, Ethiopian restaurants, French grocery stores, and Somali coffee shops. Djibouti is, as it always has been, a kind of crossroads between nothing and nowhere.

Across Menelik Square, past two defunct telephone booths, I spied a small bookstore. Surely, I thought, this was the kind of place information flowed through. Maybe there was even a book about the bridge. I went over and ducked inside. Most of the titles were in French, with a small English section. The owner was a friendly young Indian man.

“Are you from Djibouti?” I asked.

“Yes,” he said. “I was born here.”

“Do you like it?”

“Well,” he said, “all you get in Djibouti are booze, babes, and bridge.”

“Bridge?”

“Cards,” he said, and made a dealing motion with his hands.

“I thought you were talking about the bridge to Yemen,” I said. “Do you have any books about that?”

“No,” he said, “It’s two years now since I heard anything about it. They announced it, then nothing.”

“So they’re not building it?”

“I don’t know. They were supposed to finish it in six months. But this is Africa. If something is supposed to take two years, it will take twenty. You just have to add the zeros.”

I bought a paperback, thanked him, and stepped back out into the heat.

The next day, when I knew my way around a little, I decided to get serious about the bridge, first by asking people I met around town about it. One Yemeni man told me that the work had stopped, but that all the equipment was still there. An Ethiopian man said he hadn’t heard anything about it. A Somali man told me there was too much corruption for that to happen. Most of my inquiries were met with indifference, which struck me as strange: here was one of the world’s biggest projects on one of the world’s most important sites, but no one seemed to know or care much about it. In the end, I would have to go there to see for myself.

I stopped in the National Tourism Office to ask about how to get up to Bab al-Mandeb. The woman behind the desk suggested I take a taxi from Obock, the last town on the road north to Eritrea. She handed me a photocopied list of hotels there, then told me the office was closing, since it was almost 1 p.m. That’s when Djiboutians begin their three-hour, narcotic siesta, during which they chew the leaves of a psychotropic plant called khat.

Since Djibouti is an arid desert where nothing grows, the khat comes from Ethiopia, and the average family spends 40 percent of their income on it. Until around 2010, the khat arrived every day on a plane that landed at noon. Traders would race back to the city from the airport, then all the shop doors would shut tight until late afternoon, when things slowly came to life again.

Now the khat comes on overnight trucks, and you can buy it all day, but the siesta remains and the streets are eerily empty. It was during this time that I was walking along when I heard someone yell, “Hello, my friend!”

I looked to see a man waving me over. He was sitting on a piece of cardboard, under a crumbling portico, with another man. I walked over and shook his hand. He smiled. There were green bits of masticated leaf smeared across this teeth and gums. His cheek was jammed so full of it that it looked like a giant pustule ready to burst.

“Sit down, sit down,” he said. His wife brought over a piece of cardboard for me, and I sat. He started speaking in broken English. I asked where he’d learned it.

“I was working in the shipping,” he said. “I saw many places! So many places. I speak Greek! You like Djibouti? Djibouti people?”

“Yes,” I said.

“Djibouti people very good,” he went on. “Djibouti is security. Not like Yemen. Yemen there is always fighting. Arabs fighting. Libya. Yemen. Don’t go to Yemen.”

“Why?”

“Yemen is bullshit.”

“Don’t they want to build a bridge to Yemen?” I asked.

He didn’t answer, but just stared out into the street and muttered to no one in particular, “Yemen is bullshit.”

Yemen might be bullshit today, but around 60,000 years ago it wasn’t. No one is exactly sure what it was like, but there is evidence that it would have been a kind of paradise for early hunters, a place with plentiful rainfall, rivers full of fish, and large game roaming across what is now known as the Empty Quarter. It was a place where the grass may have literally been greener.

For a long time, archaeologists assumed that humans left Africa via the land bridge connecting Egypt with the Middle East — what is known as the Levant. The problem was that there was little evidence on the ground of this so-called Levantine corridor.

But in the late twentieth century a new theory arose, which held that there was another route out of Africa by way of Bab al-Mandeb: the “southern corridor,” or the “Arabian corridor.” According to this theory, people then followed the Arabian coast up and around to India, and from there out into the wider world, sailing, walking, and climbing to every corner.

This happened in a very short time, historically speaking, and no one knows exactly why. But something seemed to have changed, and many think it was something in those people. The archaeological record is confused and spotty and tells contradictory stories. But in the 1990s and early 2000s, the field of “genographics” began coming into its own, by which scientists traced the DNA mutations in populations around the globe. This way they could follow our ancient routes like so many genetic breadcrumbs.

Among the theories that emerged was one that said all modern humans are descended from a group of about 5,000 people, who survived the global winter caused by the eruption of the Sumatran supervolcano Toba 74,000 years ago. Shortly after that, these people started moving around the continent and beyond.

Specifically, it appears there was one group of 150 to 550 people who crossed the Red Sea at Bab al-Mandeb in search of something. All we know is that once they started moving, they spread out across the world very rapidly, and today nearly all non-Africans are descended from them.

It is a story that is being constantly rewritten by new discoveries. But we are sure these people had language, art, and abstract thought. They could plan ahead, navigate, and imagine what they couldn’t see. It seems there was something different about them from those who had gone before them. Others had crossed the Red Sea earlier, but these groups appear to have died out or stayed put. But this last group, once they made the crossing, never stopped.

I wanted to stand where they’d stood. I wanted to picture in my mind’s eye what they might have seen in theirs. I wanted to look across the water as if looking back in time.

On the street, a van pulled up where I was standing. The door was broken, and a tout hung out the window rattling some coins in his hand. “Héron?” he asked. I nodded and got in, and we rolled out of downtown and through the quiet, diplomatic area of Héron. At the end of the road we came to an otherworldly place called the Djibouti Kempinski Palace Resort, the country’s first five-star hotel.

I climbed out, walked across the grounds, and went through the front door. It was like passing through a wormhole into another dimension. One minute I was in a blazing hot, corrupt, miserable dump of a country. The next I could hear violins and the trickle of a waterfall, and my body was in shock from the cold. There were marble floors, ornately carved chairs, colorful stained-glass lamps.

I’d come to the Kempinski to meet a middle-aged, clean-cut man named Houssein who gave birding tours throughout the country — and who knew a lot about remote regions like Bab al-Mandeb. I found him in the Kempinski café and we drank five-dollar glasses of orange juice while we looked over a map of Djibouti. Houssein pointed to the area around Bab al-Mandeb.

“This area is closed,” he said, “because there are some problems with Eritrea.”

“Problems?” I asked.

“Yes,” he said. “Eritrea invaded, and now the situation is under some kind of mediation. But I think they closed the road after Obock.”

I looked at the map. Obock was the old town where the French first established their outpost in 1862, before the colonists moved across the bay to Djibouti City. Today it’s the last town of any size on the road to Bab al-Mandeb.

“That is where they are building the bridge, right?” I asked.

“Yes. Actually they announced the bridge here, at this hotel,” he said.

“And what did people think of it?”

Houssein shrugged. “Well, if you are not connected with reality, you can believe it. But it is very difficult. It is twenty-eight kilometers. The maritime currents are terrible. Sometimes even these supertankers are struggling to get through. I don’t know. These people are crazy.”

“There’s no infrastructure there at all?”

“No! These are fishing villages. The people don’t even know how to build houses. They don’t even need houses, because it’s warm all the time and they sleep outside. And there was supposed to be a city with one million people on one side, and a million people on the other side? I think it was somebody doing drugs and saying, ‘Oh, this is a good idea.’”

Back in town, at Menelik Square, I ducked into Djibouti’s Planet Hollywood knockoff. The walls were plastered with black-and-white photos — Madonna, Mel Gibson, John Wayne, etc. The waitresses were sassy and looked like they might moonlight in an older profession as well. I took a seat and spread out my notes on the table in front of me.

This news about the invasion was unnerving. When I’d tried to find out what was going on with the bridge before leaving the U.S., no one had mentioned any invasion. Before I’d left, I’d called the Djiboutian embassy in Washington, and they had assured me that it was still on track, that construction had begun, or would begin soon, and that they were just waiting for some funding that hadn’t quite materialized.

Then I had talked to Dean Kershaw, one of the engineers involved, who told me the project was definitely off, and that the original cost of $200 billion ($50 billion of which they had raised from Dubai) would more likely be $400 billion.

So I had emailed Tariq Ayyad, CEO of Noor City Development Corporation, which had been formed to spearhead the project, and he wrote back to say the bridge was still going forward but was “on hold untill political climet [sic] been addressed.”

Clearly there were mixed messages, which I sort of expected. But I hadn’t expected to be heading to the front lines of what the New York Times called a “David-versus-David battle,” between “two of Africa’s tiniest nations squaring off over a few piles of uninhabited sand.”

At the table next to me, three Somali businessmen sat talking among themselves. After a while, one of them turned and started chatting with me. He slid into my booth and asked what I was doing. I was looking at my map.

“I want to go to Bab al-Mandeb,” I said, “to see the bridge they are building.”

“Ah, the bridge,” he said, and waved his hand. “I think it was just a dream of our president. But also, that was the reason Dated photo of government buildingEritrea invaded. They said, if you build this, we will take it.”

“That’s why Eritrea invaded?”

“Yes, of course.”

I looked at the map.

“So they can’t build it?”

“No,” he said. “Never.”

 

Part of me had known all along that the bridge was a fiasco. But I loved the idea of it, the irony of the first crossing overlaid by a second, as if humanity had come full circle. Once I got to Djibouti, I thought I would be inspired to muse about bridges, but now every bridge metaphor seemed to end in a cliché. Honestly, I had no idea what I expected to find up at Bab al-Mandeb. Some deserted equipment? A sign next to an empty lot that said “Eco-city”? Nothing at all?

Now I was starting to wonder if I would even get there. After all, that was the real reason I was in Djibouti: because of that older crossing, the one where we took our first steps into the wide world and became the species we are — restless, forward-moving, curious, able to see not only what is, but what can be.

How those people got across the Bab al-Mandeb is a question that will likely never be answered. The real question for me was why? It’s possible they ran out of food, or were escaping from hyenas. But then they kept going over every horizon. They built boats and sailed across oceans with no land in sight. At the Max Planck Institute, evolutionary geneticist Svante Pääbo told the New Yorker he is comparing human DNA with those from Neanderthals and others to see if he can find out whether “some freak mutation made the human insanity and exploration thing possible.”

Pääbo’s notion that our restlessness is innate speaks to me on many levels: as a traveler, a writer, as someone who gets bored with any routine that lasts longer than a week. Growing up, the hills around my hometown always felt like prison walls. After I escaped, I spent much of my young adulthood exploring unknown corners of the world, trying to fill what felt like a bottomless need to see and know things. The movement was intoxicating, addictive, exhausting, and fulfilling.

Life goes on, however, and if you want other things out of it, you have to meet the people you love halfway. But even after my wife and I bought a house and had children, the restlessness remained. I have found as many outlets for it as I can, and cultivated my inner life, but deep down I still feel torn between the devotion to the family I love and this other need. I struggle to find a midpoint between stasis and motion — between “citizen and nomad,” as novelist and travel writer Bruce Chatwin put it.

Outside Planet Hollywood, I looked at my watch. The shops were closed. The heat was crushing. I tried to think of something to do. My guidebook listed two things to see in the city — a mosque and the market — and I’d seen them both. The stasis of the city was starting to wear me down: it was time to get back in motion.

I went to my place and packed up my things. In the morning I walked across town to a dusty lot littered with discarded car engines, where I found the “bus” (a Toyota Land Cruiser) going to Obock. It was a little after 1 p.m. when we pulled out of town.

The road wound up and down through the mountains. It was hot, rocky, and barren. At Lake Assal, 500 feet below sea level, the temperature must have been around 115°F. It felt like driving across another planet. The only thing that seemed to grow out of the ground were rocks and the occasional scrubby tree.

Three of us were jammed in the front seat next to the driver, and twenty more in back. I had to move my leg every time the driver shifted. Next to me was a young guy named Ali who said he was from Ethiopia, but who I later learned had escaped Eritrea and was waiting for his papers.

It felt so good to be out there, traveling though a new landscape, slaking my thirst for motion — a feeling Chatwin knew well. “Why do I become restless after a month in a single place,” he wrote, “and unbearable after two?” He spent much of his life trying to explain this need, and when he died he left fragments of a manuscript called The Nomadic Alternative, in which he tried to prove that “evolution intended us to be travelers,” and that “travel does not merely broaden the mind. It makes the mind.”

Writer and traveler Michael Mewshaw voiced a similar sentiment, saying that for him travel “isn’t just a way to escape, as Graham Greene put it, or a way to gather material or battle against boredom.… It’s my method, à la Arthur Rimbaud, of systematically deranging my senses, opening myself up to the new and unexpected.”

Rimbaud — the poet and patron saint of modernity, and one of the giants of French letters — abruptly left his literary life behind in his early twenties, eventually settling in Djibouti, before moving on to Ethiopia. The first place Rimbaud landed was a tiny, sweltering village on the Red Sea called Obock, where he, in a real sense, became a new person. I’d always read Rimbaud’s story with a kind of longing, because of its sense of creation, discovery, and rebirth.

That, more than anything, was what I loved most about new places, new languages, and new cultures. It was seeing the world of possibilities expand before my eyes and letting them become part of me. It was this sense that new places, people, and ideas could  make you into a new person.

It was nearly dark when we pulled into Obock, which was Ali’s stop too. After we’d piled out of the car with our bags, I asked Ali if he knew where a hotel was. He turned to ask a woman walking by, then turned back to me with a troubled look.

“No hotel,” he said.

“What about the Village Mer Rouge?” I asked.

“Closed.” We stood in silence until he said, “Wait here.”

A few minutes later, he came back with a friend who spoke better English. They took me down a hill to a small house where a man who owned a shipping company rented out rooms: thirty dollars for a cot, a locked door, and an air conditioner.

It was a low, one-story building, and the only thing in the room besides the cot was a plastic chair. There were heavy wooden shutters on the window, but it seemed safe enough, so I set my bag inside, locked the door, and wandered out to look for something to eat. I found a small shop where I bought a baguette and a packet of cheese, then walked down to the water where I sat on the sea wall.

The moon was out. The beach in front of me was littered with trash. Small crabs skittered over the refuse, in and out of holes, while dogs roamed about, looking for scraps.

Behind me sat the small, ruined house where Rimbaud once lived. The roof was caved in, and it was full of building supplies. But it was still there. I wondered what the poet would have seen as he looked out his window. Even in the moonlight, it was hard to tell where the water ended and the sky began, let alone imagine what lay beyond it.

When I’d read about those first people crossing the same waters 60,000 years ago, I’d felt a sharp sense of recognition, like we must be from the same species, one drawn to the horizon, one whose restlessness was something deep and old. It’d made me feel like that’s who we are.

The next morning, I walked through town trying to find a taxi, or a bus, or some other way to get to Bab al-Mandeb. But no sooner had I started making inquiries than a battered pickup pulled up beside me. The driver was a wiry old man dressed in military fatigues. There were two people in the backseat.

The driver motioned wordlessly for me to get in. I stood there for a minute.

“Police,” he said. “Come.”

“Why?” I asked.

He didn’t answer, but motioned again and looked ahead.

There was nowhere to run, even if I tried. So I got in and we drove to the other side of town without speaking. When we arrived at the police station, I was told to sit at a table in the yard out front. Several officers sat around me. One in a white T-shirt seemed to be in charge. He lit a cigarette.

“Tell me why are you here,” he said.

“Tourism,” I answered.

“And where did you come from?”

“Djibouti.”

“You have a car?”

“No,” I said. “I came in the Land Cruiser.”

“The white one?”

“Yes.”

“Why are you here?”

“Tourism.”

Tourism?”

“I want to go see Bab al-Mandeb.”

“Ah,” he said with a scoff, “that is not possible. The road is closed.”

“Closed?”

“Closed. No tourists. No foreigners.”

“Because of the war?”

“Yes,” he said. “You have a visa?”

“Yes.”

“Show me.”

I handed him my passport. He leafed through it lazily.

“What is your work?”

“Teacher,” I said. As they talked among themselves, I was sure I heard the word journalist. After some discussion, the man copied down my passport number and handed it back to me.

“Okay,” he said. “Thank you.”

The sun was high by the time I got back to town. Military trucks rolled by on their way to the northern front. Bab al-Mandeb wasn’t far — just forty miles away. Yet it might as well have been on the other side of the moon.

The thought of stopping, of giving up, was unthinkable. I’d come so far. I was so close. Outside Obock, I’d seen a lighthouse on a point called Ras Bir. It was high and isolated, and I thought if I climbed up it I might get a glimpse of the Gate of Tears.

I started asking around for a ride. One guy wanted sixty dollars, which I didn’t have. Another asked for two hundred dollars. After trying a few more people, I walked to the north side of town. The lighthouse was a tiny upright sliver on the horizon. The distance was supposed to be nine kilometers, about five miles. I’d gone farther than that on foot before. So I just started walking.

The sun was relentless. The only sounds along the way were the wind, my breath, and the crunch of rocks under my feet. Far off the road I saw a lone goat herder, but otherwise not a soul. To my left, I passed some caves, and I wondered if someone might be in one. Down by the sea was an abandoned resort, its round huts slowly falling apart. I felt utterly alone as I moved across the plain, with no idea what I would find when I arrived.

I walked and walked, but the lighthouse never seemed to get closer. I had a lot of time to think, and I wondered if this could have been what it was like for those first people who lived along this shore: fishing, hunting, dreaming. It’s possible they had been in this very place, and that my footsteps fell in theirs, as they traveled up and down the coast looking for a way out into the world.

After an hour, I ran into some wild camels and gazelles and wondered idly if there were also hyenas. But by then, the city of Obock had grown small and there was nothing to do but go on. Slowly, the lighthouse drew nearer. It felt like I was in a science-fiction novel trekking toward a remote outpost of civilization.

When I finally arrived, I followed the wall around to the gate, which was open. I walked inside. Several young soldiers stopped what they were doing and stared at me in mild shock. One stepped forward and introduced himself. His name was Hassan.

“You want to go up?” he asked.

“Yes,” I said.

He spoke to his boss, then came back and motioned for me to follow him. Together, we wound upward through the dark, along concrete stairs inside the tower, until we came to a small balcony that encircled the beacon.

I followed Hassan though a doorway. Outside, high above the sand, the world opened up before us. He leaned over the railing and looked at the water below.

“It’s beautiful, isn’t it?” he said.

The sea was deep blue. The sand was bright gold.

“Yes,” I said. “It’s very beautiful.”

He pointed east across the water. “Yemen is there.”

He turned and pointed south. “Djibouti is there.”

He pointed north. “Eritrea is there.”

“And Bab al-Mandeb?” I asked.

“… is there,” he said, and pointed far off, to a place where the sea and land faded into the haze.

I looked to where he was pointing and squinted in the sun. I was sure I could almost see it.

Originally published by Nowhere magazine.

Photo by baaker.

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

 

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

Photo by alainlm.

Covering (Up) Mental Illness in the Black Community

African American woman
Photo by alainlm

From Metta World Peace to Rudy Eugene, African Americans confronting mental health challenges are often portrayed as isolated examples of crazy or deranged people rather than members of a marginalized community suffering an illness. Beyond the black blogosphere and social networking events, the dismal state of black mental health treatment and awareness hasn’t been adequately covered by mainstream media.

Journalists, writers, and experts cite many reasons why mainstream media doesn’t cover African American mental health responsibly or consistently. Among them are racism, lack of context about how African Americans interact with the health care system, and stigmas that remain entrenched in the black community and discourage those who struggle with depression, schizophrenia, or other mental health problems from discussing them. Rarely do mainstream media outlets have the luxury of assigning a reporter to cover only mental health since most are now responsible for several beats simultaneously.

“Mental health in general has been a sub-beat in the mainstream media,” says journalist Amy Alexander, coauthor of Lay My Burden Down: Suicide and the Mental Health Crisis among African Americans. “It used to be that no one would write about mental health, and the way it would be covered would be piecemeal in the context of a report coming out from the Centers for Disease Control [and Prevention] or the National Institutes of Health. Or you would see a story pop up around a horrific event.”

Since Alexander’s book was published, little has changed. The bizarre case of Rudy Eugene, an African American in Miami who chewed off a homeless man’s face in May before being shot to death, made “bath salts” a buzz phrase nationwide. Eugene took his clothes off along the MacArthur Causeway from Miami Beach before attacking Ronald Poppo in what the Miami Herald called a “ghoulish, drawn-out assault in plain view on a city sidewalk.”

The head of the Miami police union publicly speculated that “bath salts,” synthetic stimulants believed to be the cause of psychotic episodes elsewhere around the country, prompted Eugene’s actions. But, according to the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner’s office, only marijuana was found in his system.

More likely, Kristen Gwynne wrote for Alternet, is that Eugene had a history of mental illness. “But pinning a tragedy to a drug scare is easier (and perhaps more lucrative) than explaining a nonexistent safety net for the mentally ill,” she wrote. “Bath salts, the mainstream media naively believes, can be banned and eradicated. Treating mental illness is a far more complicated story.”

Other than sensationalized portraits of individuals, the only consistent coverage of mental illness in the black community focuses on the psychological fallout of depression and other mental health issues facing black celebrities. These portrayals are opportunities for mainstream media to explore larger questions about the escalating suicide rate among black men, the entrenched stigma of appearing weak and vulnerable in the black community by seeking help, and the dearth of African American mental health professionals. Journalist and author Ellis Cose says these examples explore “celebrities much more so than the black community.”

Even when the topic is more about black celebrity than race, mental illness, particularly in famous athletes, is viewed as “evidence of a criminal character,” says David J. Leonard, author of After Artest: The NBA and the Assault on Blackness and associate professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender, and Race Studies at Washington State University.

“Media go immediately to focusing on the purported pathologies of the players themselves and don’t want to see what the broader context is,” Leonard says. “The history of race and mental health is a history of racism and the white medical establishment demonizing and criminalizing the black community through writing about their ‘abnormal personalities’ and being ‘crazy.’”

That history plays out in mainstream media coverage, but it also affects public discussions about mental health because it has so often been used to justify exclusion, segregation, and inequality in mental health treatment for African Americans. Recently, Bassey Ikpi, a writer and blogger working on a book about her bipolar disorder diagnosis in 2004, founded The Siwe Project, a global nonprofit for African Americans to share experiences about mental health in the black community. On social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, African Americans worldwide share stories of navigating mental health in a culture that actively discourages blacks from seeking talk therapy, Ikpi says.

At least partial resistance to mainstream reporting on black mental health is tied to blacks’ historical stoicism and belief that religion can serve as a substitute for professional therapy or, when necessary, medication.

“We have survived Jim Crow, beating, lynchings, and fire hoses,” says Mychal Denzel Smith, a mental health advocate, commentator, and writer. “We pride ourselves on strength. I spoke at a high school, and the teacher said, ‘Black folks just don’t have time to be depressed.’”

The Siwe Project is an important starting point for conversation outside mainstream media about the importance of self-care, Smith says.

“It’s about taking control and being proactive in defining our narrative for us instead of waiting for other people to do it. We know that there’s something wrong in our community. We have to be more proactive in addressing these issues and making sure that we take our health into account.”

Originally published by the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education.

 

How Do Immigrants Become Americans?

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.

 

Second-Generation Success

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.

 

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

Self-Portrait in Shadow, by Mandy Van Deven

The Megalomaniac’s Shadow

a photo of the author's shadow
Self-Portrait in Shadow, by Mandy Van Deven.

British journalist John Lanchester once famously described writers as being “shy megalomaniacs.” I have pondered this somewhat humorous description in an attempt to better understand my own reasons for engaging in this excessively scrutinized profession — might I be a megalomaniac? I’ve also considered the connections it alludes to between writing, mental health, and pathology. (My interview with Joy Castro, for example, teases at the interplay of these concepts.) Certainly, there are writers who possess an audacious understanding of the value they bring to popular conversation and literary craft, but what is the effect of focusing on public personas that reflect bombast and bravado over consideration and humility? What is obscured by the megalomaniac’s shadow?

When the blogosphere began to gain mainstream credibility back in the mid-aughts, I attended a discussion at the Barnard College on feminist blogging as an act of resistance, where the panel declared that “feminist bloggers have become the cultural producers blazing some of the most radical and rousing paths toward revolutionary social change.” A bold claim, indeed! The arguments boiled down to three main points: 1) blogs are accessible, public forums that anyone can create or engage in; 2) blogs encourage citizen participation by giving the Average Jane a place to voice her political discontent; and 3) blogs are democratic, egalitarian spaces where every person’s voice holds equal weight.

Seven years and an online media explosion later, it is clear blogs do not live up to these weighty and idealistic assumptions. We now understand that what happens online is not separate from, but an extension of, the social dynamics and inequities that plague societies in “real” life. Whether online or offline, most writers whose work receives widespread recognition still sit at the top of social and economic hierarchies, writers from marginalized groups still face the same barriers to success, and it still takes money to make money.

Fortunately, there are spaces online that have managed to work through or avoid the magical thinking that so often accompanies discussions about the Internet. There are spaces that prioritize stories that remain untold because they fail to be what’s hip or bite-sized or sexy. There are spaces that focus not on the center, but instead on the fray.

To be a megalomaniac one must be overly invested in one’s own power and relevance. For better or worse, I don’t fit that bill — writerly cred be damned! Although I started writing because I believe I have something important to say, I have since decided that sometimes, many times even, my time is better spent lifting the voices of others. I am duly honored to be a member of In The Fray‘s editorial team, and look forward to helping others claim their rightful place outside of the shadows.

Mandy Van Deven was previously In The Fray’s managing editor. Site: mandyvandeven.com | Twitter: @mandyvandeven

 

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

 

Call for Submissions: Mental Health in Context

In The Fray seeks stories that bring to life the experiences of individuals as they address mental health issues in schools, at home, and in the workplace.

Note: In addition to the theme below, we welcome submissions on all topics. In particular, we are seeking photo essays on any subject matter.

In The Fray Magazine | Call for Submissions | January 2013: Mental Health in Context

After the Newtown elementary school shooting in Connecticut, stories about mental health and gun violence abounded in the news. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that one in four American adults lives with mental illness — and many people with serious mental health conditions are unable to access care. In many countries, the topic of mental health is still taboo, and adequate, respectful treatment is hard to find.

In The Fray is looking for original reportage, commentary, interviews, first-person narratives, and photo essays about mental health, broadly defined. Tell us about how mental health conditions or institutions affected you, your family members, or your friends. Send us stories that bring to life the experiences of individuals — educators, therapists, psychiatrists, employers, and parents — as they address mental health issues in schools, at home, and in the workplace.

Please email submissions@inthefray.org with a well-developed, one-paragraph pitch for your proposed piece — along with three links to your previous work — NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 28, 2013.

We are open to submissions on any other topics that relate to the magazine’s themes: promoting global understanding and encouraging empathy and tolerance.

All contributors are urged to review our submissions guidelines at http://inthefray.org/submissions/.

We look forward to hearing from you.

The Editors of In The Fray Magazine
submissions@inthefray.org

 

Born Again: A Conversation with Writer Joy Castro

Best of In The Fray 2013. At an early age, Joy Castro ran away from an abusive home and renounced her faith as a Jehovah’s Witness. What she found instead was a new set of beliefs and truths for herself.

When Joy Castro was fourteen years old, she ran away from her abusive family, who had adopted her at birth. Raised as a Jehovah’s Witness, in an environment where she was to proselytize “the truth,” Castro sought refuge in the church. But after the church failed to protect her from the emotional and physical anguish she endured on a daily basis, Castro reached beyond their teachings to forge her own path to salvation.

This past year has been a busy one for Castro. Her 2005 memoir detailing her childhood, The Truth Book, was re-released. This coincided with the publication of Island of Bones, a collection of essays that continues Castro’s story of survival and resilience as she moves through adulthood. In addition to her nonfiction work, Castro’s debut crime novel Hell or High Water also recently hit the shelves.

In The Fray spoke with Castro about letting go of traditional concepts of faith, becoming a parent, her attraction to the crime fiction genre, and her definition of truth.

You were raised in an environment where the concept of “truth” was steeped in paradox. What is your understanding of truth now?

When I was growing up as a Jehovah’s Witness, “the truth” was the short-form term we used to refer to the belief system of our religion. Someone was “in the truth” or “not in the truth.” From infancy, I was taken to the Kingdom Hall for five hours each week, and my mother read to me regularly from Jehovah’s Witness literature at home. We went preaching door to door. I prayed morning and night and before every meal in the way I had been taught. So, it was pretty much a full-immersion experience.

I was a believer. Another option was impossible for me to conceive when I was a child. It was only as I got older — ten, eleven, twelve — and had been exposed to enough contradictory material at school that I began to question the tenets of our faith. I ran away at fourteen and stopped attending the Kingdom Hall at fifteen. As we know, “truth” is something that’s energetically debated by political and religious systems all over the world, so it wasn’t as though, when I was fifteen, I moved from a brainwashed state into one of clarity. Truth remains up for grabs.

Now, I just prefer to believe in kindness, compassion, the attempt at honesty about one’s experience and perceptions, and the effort to create justice. As a species, we need a variety of competing voices, competing subjectivities, in order to be able to figure out the best strategic ways forward.

You’ve written about there being freedom in accepting one’s own imperfections and inability to conform to social expectation. As a woman who grew up in poverty and a survivor of childhood abuse, how have you learned to constructively carry the confines of your personal history?

It has meant relinquishing the dream of having had a beautiful childhood — or, within academia, the psychic comfort of having an intellectual pedigree. I cannot compete with people who sailed or had families full of love or went to Harvard. I cannot compete with people who were not raising a child in poverty or riding city buses or doing without. By writing transparently about my own experiences and making them public, I’ve gradually let go of the desire to have been someone else, someone more socially acceptable.

How did unintentionally becoming a parent influence this process for you?

Becoming a parent at twenty, while perhaps not ideal in terms of timing, was overwhelming and transformative for me. Parents will tell you that their souls broke open when they had children. That was true in my case. That radical empathy, that willingness to sacrifice and defend, that compulsion to make a better world for all children — it’s so powerful.

For me personally, it was an opportunity not to neglect, not to abandon, not to abuse, not to commit suicide — all the things my own [adoptive] parents did that left my brother and me damaged and bereft. It was a chance to face down the deep, brooding fear of becoming an abuser. It offered a long series of moments in which to choose to say “yes” to love and growth. While that sounds like a positive, obvious, easy thing to do, it’s not so easy for people who’ve shut down after multiple traumas. For me, opening up and committing to someone in such a profound way was risky and difficult. And, ultimately, so worthwhile.

Before my son was conceived, I was never the sort of person who consciously longed to have a child. Unexpectedly becoming pregnant derailed what I thought my life would be, but in a good way. It carved out a kind of generosity and compassion in me that probably would not have otherwise developed.

My son is twenty-four now, so I’ve been this person for a long time. Lately, my focus has been on changing into someone who does not have a child, like a compass that steers all her choices, at the center of her life anymore. That has been the real challenge for me for the past few years. I think I’m getting the hang of it.

For those of us with unenviable pasts, writing can be a kind of coping mechanism employed to escape or manage the darker realities of our lives — which makes writing both painful and necessary. Has this been your experience?

For me, writing has been a beautiful gift, an escape — as you say — and a way to manage painful truths. It has also been one of the most profound pleasures of all. Using our imaginations to shape and reshape the world is a magnificent gift. What power! And hearing our own voices and exploring our own thoughts in a noisy world is such a soothing, beautiful, private thing that writing allows us to do. I’m grateful for it.

You’ve recently published your first crime novel, Hell or High Water. Does writing crime fiction allow you to explore issues in a way your previous work did not?

As a child and adolescent, I loved reading mysteries. I enjoyed the puzzles and the suspense. I still do. But now, as a writer of crime fiction, I’ve come to appreciate how devoted the genre is to issues of justice. Writing crime fiction has been a method for translating the insights of the academy for a broad audience. I’m not sure crime fiction provides additional freedoms; it’s just a different vessel for exploration.

Joy Castro head shotYour novel is set in New Orleans, a place known for its stark contrast between the lives of blacks and whites, rich and poor. What do you find compelling about placing a struggling Latina journalist in this post-Katrina backdrop?

There are a couple of reasons. First, like many people, I love the city of New Orleans. My husband grew up on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, and he lived, went to college, and worked in the city as a young adult. When we met in graduate school, he took me home to meet his family, and I fell in love with the city as I was falling in love with him. I’ve been going there regularly for twenty years now, and my affection and respect for New Orleans made me want to set a novel there.

You’re right about the black-white construction of race and ethnicity in New Orleans. While there has famously and historically been a great deal of mixing, it has usually been defined along a black-white continuum, though the influx of Latino construction workers and their families has shifted the demographic somewhat since Katrina. I was interested in exploring how a character lives her Latinidad in an environment where there’d been almost no Latino community.

You have personal experience with that as well.

Being a Latina without an ethnic community was my own experience growing up. Though I was born in Miami, we quickly moved to England, where we lived for four years when I was little. Then, after two more years in Miami, we relocated to West Virginia, where I lived until I graduated from high school. In the 1980s, I was the only Latina student in my high school, and my Spanish teacher was the only Latina I knew outside my family. Being culturally isolated is something I knew well. So, I wanted to tell a story about cultural isolation, and the strange pressures and loneliness that come with that.

There are similar feelings of isolation that come with “escaping” poverty and climbing the social ladder that your main character contends with throughout the novel.

I don’t see [the main character] as a social climber in the negative way we usually construe the term: someone who sacrifices her ethics and true feelings to attain prestige and wealth. She’s a newspaper reporter, after all, because she believes in justice. But it’s true that she did climb her way out of poverty, and she did leave some people behind, which she regrets.

Bright, poor, ambitious people in our society often live that painful story. Our social structures frequently push gifted young people to choose between pursuing their talents fully and remaining in the community that raised them. Either way, people sacrifice. It’s unfortunate.

A theme in your writing is finding redemption in telling the truth, though the result is not always a victory. Why do you embrace the mistakes people make?

It just seemed more realistic, more true to what I’ve experienced in the world. I have failed in ways that schooled my soul. Even when we’re trying, we make mistakes. We have blind spots. Knowing that about myself helps me to be compassionate with others who fail.

It’s often the case that various forces — commercial forces, political forces — don’t want uncomfortable truths to become public, and they sometimes have the power to squelch those stories. Other times, the route to a public hearing is beautifully clear. It’s a process, and it’s a choice. There will be hits, and there will be misses. The important thing is to keep telling your truth.

Mandy Van Deven was previously In The Fray’s managing editor. Site: mandyvandeven.com | Twitter: @mandyvandeven

personal stories. global issues.