As Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Joe Biden rose to the defense of the postwar international order the United States built.

Backed by strong bipartisan support from Congress, President Biden tapped into the principles of America’s trans-Atlantic leadership to unite a divided and cautious Europe behind the cause of defending Ukraine’s sovereignty.

More than 18 months later, an embattled Ukraine not only retains its independence, but has also thwarted Mr. Putin’s revanchist dreams of restoring Russian control over the territory of the former Soviet Union.

In its leadership position, the U.S. has so far provided Ukraine $113 billion in security and economic assistance.

Advocates of America’s role as guarantor of a rules-based international order consider that price tag a bargain. But now in Washington a very different view of that $113 billion is taking root, dimming prospects of continued robust U.S. support for Ukraine.

To be sure, cracks in the wall of Western aid to Ukraine have also surfaced in central Europe recently, notably with the victory in Slovakia’s elections Sunday of a pro-Putin populist who vows to end the NATO member’s support for Ukraine.

Still, it’s the signs of a wavering commitment in Washington that have Kyiv and Western leaders most concerned.

Championing the effort to stop all aid is a growing minority of Republicans in the House of Representatives that rejects any additional assistance, decrying it as more reckless spending and a reflection of an outdated globalist foreign policy that fails to put America first.

And as the House moves toward an election next week for a new speaker to replace Kevin McCarthy – ousted Tuesday in a historic vote in which Ukraine aid played a role – the question of U.S. aid to Ukraine is expected to again loom large.

Even as President Biden reassured Kyiv and jittery European allies this week that robust U.S. assistance will continue for “as long as it takes,” signs are growing that the House Republican majority could elect a speaker whose own refrain on Ukraine aid will be, “No more.”

Alex Brandon/AP/File

American 155 mm artillery shells are bound for Ukraine, at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, April 29, 2022.

If it does, it would be another historic vote, some foreign policy experts say, as it would highlight a Republican Party solidifying its flirtation with isolationism and Putin-style strongman leadership in the era of Donald Trump.

Party of Reagan

Moreover, it would signal a hardening of its turn against the brand of internationalist American leadership – employed by Mr. Biden in his Ukraine policy – that not only has enjoyed bipartisan support, but has also been a hallmark of Republican Party doctrine for decades.

“It’s frankly hard to imagine that the party of Ronald Reagan might consider abandoning a beleaguered democracy facing an unprovoked attack from an authoritarian neighbor who is also one of our major adversaries,” says Bradley Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington.

What the House debate over Ukraine assistance has revealed is a “small but vocal minority” that sees Mr. Putin more as a model than as an adversary, says Mr. Bowman, who served for nine years on the defense and national security staffs of Republican senators.

Yet because the Republican majority in the House is so slim, and House Republicans are so divided, the “small minority” is “punching above its weight,” he adds.

Others say growing Republican opposition to Ukraine aid reflects a shifting party base that is more drawn to the “America first” of former President Trump than to traditional Republican internationalism.

That base is a key reason that a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows the American public’s support for aid to Ukraine slipping to around 40% – still slightly above the opponents and “don’t knows,” but an ominous sign for representatives facing elections next year.

“The bases of both major political parties have fundamentally changed over the past couple of decades, but on the Republican side ... we’re seeing two trends that stand out, neither of which is good news for the future of aid to Ukraine,” says Elizabeth Hoffman, director of congressional and government affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

“One is the isolationist trend, with a bit of protectionism related to China. The other,” she adds, “is a sense that we are spending all this time and money on Ukraine, when China is the real threat.”

Explanations needed

Both Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Bowman are confident Congress will approve some amount of additional aid to Ukraine in the coming weeks, citing what they say are hefty bipartisan majorities in favor in both the House and the Senate.

But they also argue that the Biden administration and Ukraine supporters in Congress are going to have to step up with robust explanations of why the aid is in America’s interests.

The way Ukraine assistance became part of the drama of Speaker McCarthy’s ouster “really has changed the game,” Ms. Hoffman says. “It’s just a reality that negotiations are going to be much tougher now.”

The administration can start by laying out a strategy for skeptical Republicans, something Ms. Hoffman says it has never done.

To reach “America-firsters,” the Biden administration can point out that a large chunk of the security assistance to Ukraine has actually remained in the U.S., for example through contracts with munitions manufacturers and other businesses in the defense industry.

“Of the total amount appropriated for Ukraine, 46% of it is staying in the U.S.,” says Ms. Hoffman, citing a recent CSIS study. “It’s just not the case that $113 billion is leaving the U.S. to support Ukraine.”

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio (left) and Kevin McCarthy of California, then the minority leader, exchange places at the microphones during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, July 21, 2021.

Mr. Bowman agrees, acknowledging that much of the public might be drawing incorrect conclusions about where the $113 billion is going.

“We’re not just dropping bags of cash over Kyiv,” he says. “A lot of that money is going to the American defense industry.”

Moreover, he says that spending at home has come with a “silver lining,” in that it has revealed a weakened defense manufacturing base unable to quickly fill a range of orders.

“This situation has served as a wake-up call that our defense industry needs to be bolstered,” Mr. Bowman says.

Signals to China, Europe

Some analysts argue that the support for Ukraine has actually made the U.S. better prepared to confront an increasingly aggressive China, even as it has almost certainly had an impact on Beijing. As Chinese leader Xi Jinping weighs his options on Taiwan, some say, he can’t help but have noted how U.S. support for Ukraine has left Russia stuck in a sapping quagmire.

“Before this wake-up call from the war in Ukraine, if something had happened in the Taiwan Straits to cause us to turn suddenly to our defense industry, it would have been too late,” Mr. Bowman says.

Indeed, some in Europe say that in a similar way, the signs of weakening support in Washington for Ukraine assistance are providing a necessary wake-up call to Europe that it is going to have to step up and do more.

“Certainly people in Europe understood that American assistance would diminish over time and we Europeans would have to do more for what ultimately is our responsibility,” says Sven Biscop, director of the Europe in the World Program at Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations in Brussels.

No one in Europe expects U.S. support for Ukraine to collapse, he says, but on the other hand the rumblings in Washington should prompt Europe to prepare to take on more of the Ukraine burden.

“We can do that in most areas if we want to,” he adds, “but right now Europe is moving too slow.”

Macron’s shift

As for signs of weakening support in Europe, Dr. Biscop says that at least as important as the domestic politics-fueled debates in places like Slovakia and Poland is the evidence of strengthening support for Ukraine in Europe’s traditional power centers, including France.

Indeed, over the course of the war French President Emmanuel Macron has shifted from a position of favoring dialogue with Mr. Putin to now promoting Ukraine’s rapid entry into NATO, moving ahead of Washington on that issue.

With the turmoil in Congress and opinion polls indicating about 8 in 10 Republican voters favor a 2024 presidential candidate who would end support for Ukraine, President Biden has his work cut out for him, Ukraine backers say.

The president appears to have gotten the message, telling reporters this week that he will soon deliver a major speech on how assistance to Ukraine serves America’s broad interests.

“It’s really important to have the president out there talking not just to Congress but to the American people about the consequences if the U.S. fails to provide support for Ukraine,” Ms. Hoffman of CSIS says. “For people who have become wary of intervention abroad,” she adds, “I think he can make the case that we are weakening an adversary without putting any boots on the ground.”

Former President Donald Trump audibly groaned. He scribbled notes on pieces of paper, threw some away, and then muttered quietly to his lawyers. He appeared to shake his head and then threw up his hands.

It was the third day of Mr. Trump’s New York state civil trial this week on charges of fraudulently inflating the value of real estate assets, and he appeared to be getting restless. At the noon break, he spoke angrily to reporters about how unfair the judge and trial were. Then he left the courthouse, got on his jet, and flew back to his Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.

Mr. Trump’s departure was unsurprising. He does not have to attend the civil trial, and he had already sat through hours of testimony. Judge Arthur Engoron has already ruled against him and his businesses on the case’s core fraud charge. The trial is now about six additional claims against Mr. Trump. 

It was his presence in the courtroom to begin with that may have been more remarkable – and indicative of the lawsuit’s core challenge to Mr. Trump’s identity as a successful businessperson. Mr. Trump’s biggest legal problems remain criminal cases on allegations of election interference and illegal retention of classified documents. But he also faces a looming series of civil lawsuits such as the New York fraud trial, which could cost him hundreds of millions of dollars, threaten the stability of his business empire, and cast a harsh light on some of his personal behavior.

If nothing else, the civil trials add even more court dates to Mr. Trump’s already crammed legal agenda. Mr. Trump and his companies face the daunting logistical challenge of organizing and paying for legal representation in serious cases for months, if not years, to come. 

“This is like a hypothetical that a lot of law professors would reject. Imagine a person with this many pending legal actions,” says Daniel Urman, a professor of law and public policy at Northeastern University in Boston.

Craig Ruttle/AP

Former President Donald Trump speaks with journalists during a break from court proceedings in New York, Oct. 2, 2023.

Current and upcoming civil court cases  

Civil court cases are different from criminal counterparts in a number of ways. The punishment for losing a civil suit is not a prison sentence, as can be the case with criminal prosecutions. It is generally a monetary payment or a court injunction against engaging in a particular activity. In civil suits, plaintiffs establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence, instead of the “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of a criminal trial.

The New York trial that started Monday is a civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James that centers on charges that Trump businesses knowingly puffed up the estimated value of holdings such as Trump Tower to get favorable treatment from banks. Judge Engoron estimates that given the length of witness lists, it could last until just before Christmas. 

On Friday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked an appeals court to halt proceedings in the New York trial while they fight a ruling in the case by Judge Engoron that could lead to the dissolving of some Trump companies and the loss of prized real estate assets.

Two further civil cases involving Mr. Trump are scheduled to go to trial in New York in January 2024. One is a battery and defamation suit against him from writer E. Jean Carroll, who won a $5 million judgment against Mr. Trump in May after he called her sexual assault allegations a “complete con job.” 

Ms. Carroll’s upcoming suit against the former president stems from remarks made during a different period of time. A judge has already ruled those remarks were also libelous. That means the only issue in January will be how much more money Mr. Trump will be required to pay. 

Seth Wenig/AP/File

E. Jean Carroll (right) walks out of Manhattan federal court, May 9, 2023, in New York. A federal judge ruled on Sept. 6, 2023, that still more of the former president's comments about her were libelous.

Then late in the month, a class-action lawsuit alleging that the former president and his children fraudulently convinced consumers to invest in get-rich-quick schemes is scheduled to begin in federal court. The suit charges that the Trumps received secret payments for promoting a number of business entities as legitimate opportunities when in reality they were scams that harmed unsophisticated investors.

Beyond that, a number of individuals, including some Democratic members of Congress and police officers, have filed civil lawsuits against Mr. Trump for injuries and damage allegedly incurred during the Jan. 6 riot. Many of these have been combined into a single suit, Blassingame v. Trump, named for Capitol Police officer and plaintiff James Blassingame.

A trial in Blassingame will likely not be scheduled until after the resolution of criminal cases against Mr. Trump for election interference filed by federal special counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis.

Currently the federal election case is scheduled to start on March 4, 2024. The sprawling Georgia case, with 18 defendants besides Mr. Trump, officially starts on Oct. 23 of this year with the trial of two Trump lawyers who have requested expedited proceedings. Mr. Trump himself will not be there. His Georgia trial has yet to be scheduled. But even in absentia, he and his central role in the alleged conspiracy to overturn Georgia’s presidential vote may loom over the Atlanta courtroom.

Trump’s behavior in court 

Mr. Trump’s 2 1/2-day attendance at his New York fraud trial may be a preview of how he deals with his criminal and important civil trials to come.

In court, the former president for the most part sat quietly, though he appeared agitated at times, particularly when prosecutors criticized Trump organization valuations of particular properties such as his Trump Tower triplex. Out of court, he spoke vehemently to reporters about what he claims is a political prosecution by a biased judge.

On Tuesday Mr. Trump received a sharp rebuke from the legal system for his sometimes incendiary social media language. After he posted a disparaging and untrue post on Truth Social about Judge Engoron’s clerk, the judge ordered him to remove it and then forbade all parties in the proceedings from posting, emailing, or speaking publicly about any members of the judge’s staff.

“Failure to abide by this ... will result in serious sanctions,” said Judge Engoron in court, while Mr. Trump looked straight ahead.

This was a gag order, but a narrowly tailored one, said some experts.

“Engoron is striking a balance – ordering Trump not to attack court personnel but allowing him to speak [about Attorney General Merrick Garland] & judge himself,” wrote Brookings Institution senior fellow Norm Eisen on X, the site formerly known as Twitter.

Mr. Trump’s appearance in New York may have reflected the way the charges call into question his carefully developed image as a successful businessperson and real estate billionaire. In addition, the penalties of the trial could be enormously expensive, with a possible fine of up to $250 million, and destructive to his existing organization. Judge Engoron has already ordered the cancellation of legal certificates that have allowed Mr. Trump and his family to do business in the state and asked for the appointment of a receiver to oversee the dissolution of some Trump entities. The upshot is that the former president could lose control over highly visible New York assets, including Trump Tower.

Mary Altaffer/AP

Judge Arthur Engoron (right) and principal law clerk Allison Greenfield sit on the bench in the courtroom before the start of a civil business fraud trial against the Trump Organization, Oct. 4, 2023, in New York.

Outside the courtroom, Mr. Trump has angrily insisted that Judge Engoron was grossly undervaluing his Mar-a-Lago property by listing it as worth some $18 million, for instance. Given its association with the Trump brand and its quality, it is in fact worth over $1 billion, the former president said, calling it “arguably the most valuable residential property in the country.”

The January civil trial on Mr. Trump’s alleged participation in get-rich-quick schemes may draw similar ire, given its subject. Both it and the New York fraud trial portray the former president as a cheat – not the shrewd mogul he portrayed on “The Apprentice.”

But Mr. Trump’s appearance at the beginning of his New York trial undeniably drew substantial media attention, with live telecasts and continual updates on print media websites. That may be another aspect of Mr. Trump’s thinking – if trials take you off the campaign trail, bring the campaign trail to you. 

During his break-session press conferences, Mr. Trump continued to insist to large groups of reporters that his legal predicament is one large witch hunt, all related to the witch hunts of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and his two House of Representatives impeachments.

Similar appearances outside future trial sites might well draw similar media scrums.

“He’s good ratings. He’s catnip to the press,” says Professor Urman.

Claire Savage/AP

South Carolina school librarian Jamie Gregory displays two books that have been repeatedly challenged, while seated at the "Banned Books from the Big Chair" station at the American Library Association conference in Chicago, June 24, 2023. The books are "Gender Queer" by Maia Kobabe, and "Out of Darkness," by Ashley Hope Pérez.

Kasey Meehan says it was her long-held love for books that made her become, in one sense, their political advocate.

“As simple as that sounds, I think that’s what brings many folks on the team to this role,” says Ms. Meehan, program director of the Freedom to Read initiative at PEN America, a nonprofit that advocates for freedom of expression at the intersection of human rights and literature. “For many of us, reading has just been such a foundational part of our own self-discovery and a kind of self-awareness-building experience.”

In some ways, it is this very power of books and ideas that has often thrust them into the center of politics, either to bolster existing authority or to pose a threat. Given the emotional impact of literature and storytelling, it may not be surprising that those who would ban certain books understand their potential impact and power.

It’s a particularly busy week for Ms. Meehan and her organization as they participate in the annual Banned Books Week, founded in 1982 and sponsored by a consortium of publishers and nonprofits. This year, they are highlighting what they see as the dangers of banning books in school, especially at a time when such bans have been increasing across the United States, particularly in Republican-led states. 

For Ms. Meehan and others, the power of books and ideas is integral to their vision of a democratic society. “Book bans are just a real threat to developing a deeper understanding and empathy for others in our very pluralistic society – the ways we can see each other’s humanity,” Ms. Meehan says.

According to a recent PEN America report, there has been a spike in efforts to ban books during the 2022-2023 school year, including over 3,300 instances in certain school districts where over 1,550 titles were taken off school shelves. 

Lisa Rathke/AP

Vermont author Tanya Lee Stone reads from her banned book during a banned book reading and discussion held by Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (far left) at Bridgeside Books in Waterbury, Aug. 13, 2023.

“When we examine the scope of the last two years, books that include diverse characters, primarily characters of color and LGBTQ+ characters, were overwhelmingly subject to book bans,” wrote Ms. Meehan as the PEN America report’s lead author. The vast majority of these books, too, are considered young adult titles, she says.

The most-banned books this school year include “Tricks” by Ellen Hopkins, “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison, and “Looking For Alaska” by John Green. Other oft-banned books include “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe and “All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George M. Johnson.

Many Republicans reject labeling such efforts “bans,” however, arguing that when it comes to public education, questions about the age-appropriateness of certain topics in school libraries are legitimate concerns. That’s especially true, they say, when it comes to matters of human sexuality. Such books remain available for sale. The point, many say, is that it is parents who should control what their children have access to read when it comes to these subjects.   

“It is not partisan to assert that children do better when their families know what’s going on in their lives,” testified Nicole Neily, president of the nonprofit Parents Defending Education, during a U.S. Senate hearing about book bans in September. 

“Yet now when families ask to simply know what their children have access to – or may wish to put guardrails on material for children of certain ages – they are pilloried in the public square,” Ms. Neily said. “Such public flagellation is intended to not only extract a pound of flesh from the perpetrator but to send a message to any other parent with similar reservations: Speak up, and the mob will come for you too.” 

The values underlying conservative efforts to emphasize parental rights and guardrails on access to books are part of religious conservatives’ understanding that they should train their children in the traditional ways of their faith and understanding of a divine order revealed in Scripture. For most, sex, gender, and human sexuality are clearly defined, and a departure from these ways disrupts God’s intended order.

At the same time, too, a Republican “war on woke” has fundamentally challenged the idea that books about racial and sexual identity foster empathy and peaceful pluralism. In fact, many conservatives say, such efforts are themselves both anti-democratic and rooted in a dangerous emphasis on racial and even religious differences.

Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman/AP

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law HB 900, legislation that prohibits sexually explicit material in Texas public school libraries, at the Texas Capitol in Austin, June 12, 2023.

In an executive order prohibiting “indoctrination and critical race theory in schools,” Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas this year said a focus on identity was “resurrecting segregationist values” and was “antithetical to the traditional American values of neutrality, equality, and fairness.”

States such as Florida, Texas, and Missouri have been the most active in placing restrictions on books and concepts in schools, in some cases including higher education. But the controversies have also spilled over into funding for local public libraries, as efforts to ban books with topics on race and sexuality extend beyond public education.

“The books being banned are always those of marginalized voices, but it’s so important that those voices are brought in and included as legitimate and true and just as important as the others,” says Dana Reisboard, professor of education and critical literacy at Widener University in Chester, Pennsylvania. “The need for diverse voices and the need for nontraditional family structures to be brought up and brought into discussion is because they exist.

“So it’s erasing not just the people who need to see themselves; it’s also erasing for people who don’t want them included, and who then wouldn’t understand them,” she continues. “Their own sense of self and identity then grows disproportionately, takes on sole significance, because it’s in a vacuum.”

The parental rights nonprofit Moms For Liberty has spearheaded many of the efforts to remove certain books from schools, becoming a major conservative grassroots organization with close ties to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Last year, the state passed its Parental Rights in Education Act, which some critics have dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” law. Over the past year, of all the books banned in U.S. public schools, 40% of these have been in Florida, PEN America found.

The organization has dismissed the books in the PEN America’s report as “pushing porn on school kids.” It has offered a competing “Teach Kids To Read Week,” highlighting some of the dismal reading proficiency numbers among American fourth graders. Moms for Liberty did not return repeated requests for comment from the Monitor.

Accusations of pushing porn have also included conservative accusations that these books are part of a “grooming” effort to sexualize schoolchildren or “recruit” them for LGBTQ+ “lifestyles.” 

Such accusations have been leveled against members of the LGBTQ+ community since the beginning of the gay rights movement in the 1970s, says Donna Decker, a professor of English who teaches a class on banned books at Franklin Pierce University in New Hampshire. “It really is frightening, calling or insinuating that someone is a predator. And what that does – the real crux of this is, it is trying to erase people’s humanity. So do not say ‘gay’; do not say ‘trans.’ Pull medical treatment or access to medical opinions. It’s all part of the same distancing, an attempt to turn people into a dangerous ‘other.’”

Professor Decker says she and her students talk about the power of literature and storytelling and the reasons governments have long tried to ban books. And she says that books help form human empathy and they play an important role in both understanding the world and becoming a citizen in such a diverse, democratic society.

“It’s often the case that some people’s stories are considered valuable and other people’s stories are erased,” she says. “But there is an important civic value in doing the opposite, really and truly understanding what our country is, and what it was. You could say the same about understanding yourself, and books help us do that.”

Maisie Sparks

George Godfrey, president of the Potawatomi Trail of Death Association, shares information at a cemetery in Monticello, Illinois, Sept. 19, 2023, during the 2023 Trail of Death Commemorative Caravan. Three Indigenous people from that forced march are buried in this cemetery.

In recent years, as the public ritual called land acknowledgment has become more common, I have become more aware of the names of the Indigenous nations that used to live on the land I stand upon. While I found the ritual a nice sentiment, I felt something was missing.

So did Nicole Anderson Cobb, a historian, playwright, and journalist, and Latrelle Bright, who teaches theater at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, my alma mater and Dr. Anderson Cobb’s.

“You go to events, ... you drive by places, ... you see names on things, and you don’t know anything about their history,” Ms. Bright tells me in an interview. “We read land acknowledgments. ... They sort of say we’re sorry, but they don’t say what happened.”

That was about to change – in my experience, at least.

Beyond land acknowledgment

A few months ago, these two women created an interactive experience, “Unsettled: An African American Reflection on the Potawatomi Trail of Death.” It started with the usual land acknowledgment but quickly went several steps further. The 40 of us who had gathered were given time and space to reflect on a specific event in American history.

In 1838, an estimated 850 Potawatomi were forced off lands in Indiana by a state-authorized militia and made to walk 660 miles through Illinois and Missouri to a parcel of land in Kansas. Many became ill; about 40 died. When they arrived in Kansas, two months later, they had little more than the ground beneath their feet to help them settle into their new home.

Many people were surprised, Dr. Anderson Cobb tells me, that they’d known none of this history before going on “Unsettled.” But that doesn’t surprise her. “Many communities have histories that need to be interrogated,” she says. “It’s not good enough to say it’s uncomfortable so we won’t or shouldn’t do that.”

As the day’s event progressed, there was more to learn and experience. We were led down a half-mile trail along the Sangamon River. The Potawatomi had followed this resource during part of their journey through Illinois. The walk gave us time to contrast our experience with the 1838 forced march. The displaced Potawatomi traveled during a drought; food and water were scarce. Many of us had brought snacks in our backpacks and clean water to drink.

Maisie Sparks

A historical marker erected in 1994 in Mueller Park in Decatur, Illinois, includes excerpts from the journal of the Rev. Benjamin Petit, who traveled the Trail of Death with the Potawatomi in 1838.

Along the way, we heard performers read from the letters of the Rev. Benjamin Petit, a Catholic priest who accompanied the Potawatomi, as well as reports from those who had overseen the tribe’s removal. The performers also sang Negro spirituals, something that certainly didn’t happen in 1838. But the songs’ messages connected two peoples’ histories, affirming a common humanity.

“We don’t see how history overlaps,” Ms. Bright shares later. “We think my problems are my problems and your problems are yours. We don’t see that there is a whole system at play. ... The day wasn’t about reading [a land acknowledgment] but seeing where our connections and disconnections are.”

At our final stop along the trail, we were close enough to the river’s edge that several people walked to its banks. We listened in silence as it flowed past, reflecting on what we had heard and were feeling. When I returned to our starting place, I wrote my own land acknowledgment: “We’re standing on the holy ground of people who were exiles on their native land. What was it like to follow a river into mystery ... the past gone and the future uncertain. Sobering, sacred – sad.”

Curious about these women’s motivations, I ask Dr. Anderson Cobb why they created this unsettling experience. “Scholarship is the purview of us all,” she explains. “We are all better for doing the work of inquiring about peoples, cultures, languages, and traditions that are different from our own. ... As a taxpayer, educator, and the parent of a child in school here, I have the complete right to inquire about the history and tell the stories that I’m finding.”

My growing understanding

I’ve started some inquiring of my own, watching documentaries and reading about this nation’s engagement with its Indigenous people. On a recent trip to California, I could have gone to one of its fantasy-filled theme parks, but instead opted for a Native American museum located on a reservation.

And a few weeks ago, I had the rare opportunity to travel – by car – approximately 80 miles of the Trail of Death. Between two central Illinois cities – Danville and Decatur – I peppered the president of the Potawatomi Trail of Death Association with questions. In 1988, George Godfrey, a member of the tribe, decided he wanted to help ensure that the Trail of Death would not get swept under America’s historical rug. Every five years, he and about 30 others load up their vehicles. Over six days, they travel from Twin Lakes, Indiana, to cities near Osawatomie, Kansas, the starting and ending points of the forced march nearly 200 years ago. Along the way, the caravan stops at many of the historical markers that trace the 1838 route.

“The importance of the caravan,” Mr. Godfrey tells me as we ride along, “is keeping people educated. We need to expand the knowledge. ... I want people to leave with some ways that they can work with other people so that all people can be understood and respected.”

In some of the places where we stopped, townspeople joined us at the historical markers, usually a large boulder with a metal plaque attached. We’d listen as Mr. Godfrey, an octogenarian, shared some of the history of what took place at or near that site. It was sobering and sacred, but I didn’t feel sad. I was grateful for an experience that was turning indifference into concern.

Recently, I heard a speaker define land not only as terra firma but also as the place where we build community and form our identity. When people are removed from their land – whether kidnapped and brought to another continent, made to leave their land by a dominant power, or forced from their homes because of war, starvation, catastrophic weather events, or political chaos – their original sense of community and identity is lost. They have to eke out a new life on unfamiliar land. That’s not an easy task, especially when those who are displaced are made to feel unwelcome, marginalized, or invisible where they’ve landed and likely had hoped to find safe harbor.

Indigenous people had been out of sight and out of mind for me. But it’s never too late to learn, change, and engage. Expanding my knowledge of America’s Indigenous population has become a powerful tool for dismantling the callous ignorance that had kept me from caring about the people who came before me and who still live on this land.

Mohammadi family archive photos/Handout via REUTERS

Iranian civil rights activist Narges Mohammadi poses in this undated handout picture.

The winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, Iranian rights activist Narges Mohammadi, wears many hats. She is the mother of twins, a devoted wife of a husband forced into exile, and a former engineer and journalist. The prize was given to her as “the undisputed leader” of the whole freedom movement in Iran. Perhaps the hat she wears most proudly is that of political prisoner. She is still a prominent leader of other women in prison sentenced simply for their views or the shedding of their hijabs.

Women account for many if not most of the more than 20,000 people arrested since protests erupted a year ago after the death of a young woman in police custody for not wearing proper head covering. Ms. Mohammadi herself has been in and out of prison for 25 years since her university days, often enduring solitary confinement or harsh interrogation. In her two-volume book titled “White Torture,” she interviewed many of these women, not only to document the regime’s cruelty and illegality but also to discover “the antidote” to torture.

Torture can leave deep wounds, the book finds, but fails to achieve what the ruling mullahs intend: “The Islamic regime cannot separate a woman from her love for her family, her fellow citizens, or her God.” Women under harsh interrogation found that “the desire to live freely” alleviates their suffering. It gives them strength to continue. Some found “certainty in the ultimate victory of truth.” Muslims turned to Islam for solace, while Christians “called out to Christ.”

Under interrogation, a woman’s “inner sense of responsibility” emerges to “take care of herself and those who are emotionally and politically close to her.” Note that the book is not about silent stoicism but about how the women in prison learned to build something “more powerful than individual survival – they build networks of solidarity.” Women use the humiliation of prison as a “spiritual experience” to make themselves and others stronger.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was formerly imprisoned and shared a cell with Ms. Mohammadi in the notorious Evin Prison, responded to the awarding of the Nobel Prize by saying, “It makes me cry. She did so much for all of us in Evin. Narges is an inspiration and a pillar to the women in the female ward in Evin for her fearless fight against violation of women’s rights, use of solitary confinement and execution in the judicial system in Iran.”

In a commentary last month for The New York Times, Ms. Mohammadi wrote (from prison) that the “struggle will continue until the day when light takes over darkness and the sun of freedom embraces the Iranian people.” Many like her have already found that light.