9/11 Made America More Racist
It seems that racism has been around since before the dawn of time itself. It has thrived in the best and worst of times and in every corner of the earth, doing particularly well in the United States of America. America’s relationship with racism has been a very long one and it’s still going strong. As if the situation hadn’t been dire enough, then the twin towers in New York City were attacked in an act of terrorism more horrific and devastating than the world had ever known. Whether or not the 9/11 hijackers understood the consequences of their actions is irrelevant. The after-effects rippled outwards and caused further damage more than what anyone could have expected. Fifteen years later, Americans are still dealing with the repercussions of one man’s decision to attack the United States. 9/11 shocked and terrified the world. That day set a new precedent for the future of public safety all over the globe. The TSA was exploding with new rules and restrictions on who and what can be on a plane. Americans become even more wary of anyone who didn’t look like them. The media turned the situation into a joke. Tabloids were printing new conspiracy theories everyday while shows like “South Park” and “Family Guy” turned the whole ordeal and those behind the attacks into a punchline. The saddest part is that we had an opportunity to make a comeback. It would have been one of the most difficult things our country had ever done and would have further changed the world forever but we failed to take advantage of our opportunity to find good in the situation. We’ve let the 9/11 attacks define our foreign policies, world relations and even how America functions domestically. Furthermore it’s changed how we relate to others. Our culture had never been particularly welcoming to new elements but more now than ever, we bristle at the idea of welcoming anyone or anything we’re not immediately familiar with. In recent years this reaction has softened, especially with younger generations rising up and becoming more politically aware but the majority of America still holds deeply rooted emotions against anything related to the 9/11 hijackings. The ripple effects of the attacks still continue outward even today. Presidential nominee Donald J. Trump made it a main point in his campaign to assure Americans that he’d place restrictions on allowing muslims to enter our country. Regardless of whether or not his prejudice stems from the attacks, many his voters share this sentiment because of the events of 9/11.
References
Rose, S. (2013, September 12). Since 9/11, Racism and Islamophobia Remain Intertwined. Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/steve-rose/911-racism-islamophobia_b_3908411.html
Poladian, C. (2015, September 11). The United States After 9/11: 6 Things That Have Changed Since 2001. Retrieved November 09, 2016, from http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/united-states-after-911-6-things-have-changed-2001-2093156
In-Class Task
In a few sentences, use the Reply field below to critique this Causal Argument draft.
Dev
Joe Gramigna
adamreim
alexmoran17
alivewit55
americangods01
anonymous123
Anonymous
azntaco
belldere
bigcounrty609
bigfoot9
bj112295
blueee04
breadpatrol99
brxttyb
calamariii
cfalover
charlieclover
cherries267
chickendinner
chickennugget246
chickennugget444
clevelandbrown03
cocochanel715
comatosefox
crossanlogan
cswilliams15
dancingueen
disneylover2002
doglover846
dontquoteme187
douglasadams525
dt2018
faded26
fatjoe000
friendoftacos
frogs02
fromcasablanca
fulcrum66
g00dsoup
giants19
gingerbreadman27
girlno3
gobirds115
goodmusician440
gracchusbabeuf
hiralp365
ifurreadingthisits2l8
ilovedunkinoverstarbucks
ilovenas
imaspookyghost
inspireangels
JalenHurts4Mvp
jasrielle2
jcirrs
jonnyb25
eagles21
kilotoon
kingofcamp
krackintheneck
Philip Ebenezer
Lily4Pres
littlecow24
ljkvng34
lokiofasgard24
luckyleprechaun1
marinebio18
mellowtacos
miliwawa
minutemen14
mossmacabre
music0392
mymomshouldhavenamedmegrace
ndb1996
neferpitou626
nugget114
oatmealvibes
ohearnj8
palal24
peachesxo
philsfan1133
pinkheart84
pinkmonkey32
pitandthependulum22
queenrandom04
RowanAnnouncer
Rowan27
rowanluver29
rowanstudent6
saltysurfer322
saycheese03
Senpai Pio
sixfortyfive645
sortableelms
spaghettitacosforthesoul
strawberryfields4
suedejackson
sunflower0311
sunshinegirl457
tarheel1999
teddysdoggydaddy
thatwonguyy
themildewmuncher7
Public Display Name
thirdlady226
tlap23
tmjj4345
toastedflatbread22
tpaz1
tristanb50
twofoursixohtwo
tyblicky2001
venom2929
vicarij0
wakeup5am
Water
wildcuttlefish
wizzard201
xchuki
Lunaduna
zeek
ziggy026
zinny11
zipemup1
zoeyzoey0210
zzbrd2822
Counterintuitive Spring 2023 
Probably not, since races weren’t around at the dawn of time. If you feel the need to be dramatic, choose a claim that has some validity, Username.
Your claim has the unintended consequence of trivializing your thesis, Username. Something that has been with us forever and will always exist lacks urgency.
You’re circling a thesis here somewhere, Prof. 1) Racism is as old as time. 2) It’s common in the US. 3) Repeat: It’s common in the US. Is any of this necessary?
It might have felt that way to New Yorkers on that day, but you were barely alive, Username, and you didn’t survive the Russian pogroms of the early 20th century that killed millions. Just saying.
It is, however, relevant that WE understand the consequences of their actions. So far you’re hinting that somehow they affected American racism. By now, if I weren’t your professor with your best interest at heart, I would have bailed on this essay. Make it go somewhere.
Still teasing.
It did. And we are. But you promised me something I didn’t know.
You spent many sentences insisting that America is racist, then several more reminding us we were attacked 15 years ago by foreign terrorists. Now you’ve added a third wild card: public safety.
What’s your timeline here, Prof? “Was exploding” before 9/11? Or was the agency empowered as a consequence of 9/11?
Let’s be clear here. The first several sentences give no indication what races you’re indicting, but the clear implication is that you’re discussing black/white racism. “Anyone who doesn’t look like an American” is an entirely different sort of prejudice. You haven’t been clear yet; this new prejudice against “foreigners,” if that’s what you’re getting at, makes your claims less clear.
Hopelessly vague.
How is that treating the abomination as a joke?
If so, an example would be extremely helpful. But even if so, you’ve shifted your position radically from “the media” to “tabloids and South Park.”
From what to what, Username? From a racist country to a color-blind country because of a terrorist attack? From an isolationist country to one that embraced people of all nations? Is your topic racism or nationalism?
I admire the effort you’re making to suggest that 9/11 could have been a “learning experience” of some kind, but you’re leaving the entire argument to our imaginations.
If this were still your introduction, you might be forgiven for painting with broad strokes with the promise of providing details later, but these THREE MASSIVE CLAIMS are entirely unsupported. How does the legacy of 9/11 drive our foreign policy? our international relations? our domestic programs?
Other Americans? Other races?
We’re actually the primary destination for Immigrants from almost every country that people emigrate from.
Which reaction has softened? The resistance to immigration or foreign visitors that existed before they were born? or the worsening of that condition that you claim resulted from 9/11?
Are you going to redeem the promises you made in your first sentences that America is racist?
Not racist. Discrimination based on religious belief.
Don’t you want to distinguish between peace-loving observant Muslims and terrorists (religious or not) who blow things up and kill people in the name of jihad?
LikeLike
While there are multiple flaws with this essay, I particularly struggled with the contradictory and confusing language that the author chose to use. When addressing a topic as hideous as racism, using words that have positive connotations, such as “thrived” and “still going strong,” are wildly inappropriate. Additionally, it is abundantly clear that proper research was not conducted before the author began to write. The author fails to provide solid statistics and information, but instead resorts to ranting about the terrible consequences of 9/11. The tragedy of 9/11 is universally recognized by all of the country and does not need to be summarized. Furthermore, the author fails to provide the reader with a solid thesis, but rather vaguely addresses a variety of “subtopics” related to the effects of 9/11. There is great potential for a strong causal argument on the subject of racism stemming from 9/11. If proper research and stronger planning strategies were implemented, the author could have guided the reader through a chain of outcomes that resulted from the attacks.
LikeLike
You’re right, StrawberryFields. Others have commented on the rhetorical flaws, but you’re right to focus on the failure of the author to plot a logical patch. Readers need to be guided to the right conclusion.
LikeLike
This causal claim is not explored deeply enough. The claim is made, but there is no real evidence provided to back it up. The author spends most of their time providing history about 9/11, but that is not what the claim should focus on. Even when the author does address racism, it is extremely vague and it seems to point a finger at Americans, instead of thoroughly explaining where this claim stems from. Overall, it has the beginnings of a claim, but it is not written well enough and it makes weak statements that do not work for the paper.
LikeLike
I mostly agree, Toast, but I do want to grant the author the right to make a valid point. You do too, I think. 9/11 DID make it feel safe to express hatred or fear of other cultures (maybe not specifically races). As you say, “it has the beginnings of a claim.” We both wish it were written better.
LikeLike
From the opening sentence, this draft fails at grabbing my attention and few other sentences fare much better. Many have nothing to do with the issue of whether 9/11 made America more racist, going on tangents about the TSA, South Park, and so on. The author fails to provide any evidence to support their position that it did. It seems like the real overriding argument of this draft, if there is one, is “9/11 was bad and led to bad things.”
LikeLike
That’s a fair summary, ChickenDinner! 🙂
LikeLike
I appreciate the comment, Levix, but you’ll always be misunderstood if you phrase your remarks with “‘with” clauses.
—Here’s the first one:
Does this mean that you were able to understand the feedback AFTER REALIZING THAT some of the sentences were confusing? Your claim does not make that clear. You could say instead:
—Here’s the second one:
I admit to being completely perplexed by that one. There are SO MANY possibilties.
I shouldn’t have to guess.
Do you mean, for example,
Of could you mean:
Or could you mean:
Understand, even if one of these possibilities matches your intention, the fact that I have to guess means you have failed to communicate your clear claim.
LikeLike
The second one had the idea what I was trying to say Professor and I am sorry that I was unclear in my feedback and should give more clarity next time
LikeLike
I too found that phrase confusing in just the same way, frogs.
LikeLike
You do a much better job than I did of finding the value in this essay, King. Reading it again before scanning your Replies, I found myself quite impressed by some of Username‘s rhetorical sweep. There’s a lot of power in this bit here:
It’s good of you to find the good.
LikeLike
Well, I do agree, Ziggy. I wonder if being asked to read someone else’s work and comment on it without worrying about how the author will react is a valuable lesson. It’s intended to empower you and liberate you from responsibility for a classmate’s feelings.
LikeLike
This causal claim could definitely go deeper in thought. I don’t think that there is enough information about the claim. The claim is made, but there is no real evidence, so I don’t think this is a good case. If the author didn’t spend so much time on the history about 9/11, and focused more on the claim it would have been a lot better.
LikeLike
I presume that by “the claim” you mean that 9/11 made the country more racist. With that, I surely agree. The claims are many, and they’re robust, but they’ve very unclear and few of them relate at all to racism against Muslims, which, itself makes no sense since Islam is not a race.
LikeLike
I was intrigued at first by the title of the paper however the first few sentences did not grab my attention. This argument could have been a good one however the author did not say who America was being racist towards until the second to last sentence. This made it kind of confusing as to what the author was trying to say especially for someone who perhaps does not know much about 9/11 or where the hijackers came from. They spoke about a lot of things that really had nothing to do with the argument and really does not explain anything.
LikeLike
You’re completely correct that the argument lacks focus and that, when it finally does get to the point, its author doesn’t seem to know what racism is.
LikeLike
Just like what strawberryfields4 stated in their comment, the word-choice was not very wise. As a reader, the writing gave off this energy that racism is a positive force. It is particularly prominent in this line: “It has thrived in the best and worst of times and in every corner of the earth, doing particularly well in the United States of America.” I understand what the author is trying to say. Perhaps they were trying to speak in a sarcastic voice. However, it did not translate well in the reader’s mind. The writing sounds counterintuitive and a little insensitive. I would also like to call attention to this line: “Americans are still dealing with the repercussions of one man’s decision to attack the United States. 9/11 shocked and terrified the world.” Yes, 9/11 was, indeed, a horrifying event. But personally, I would not say that it shocked and terrified the world. 9/11 was an issue between America and al-Qaeda. I would not turn that into a global issue, per say.
LikeLike
Continuation of last comment: Especially since the title of this piece is about racism in America specifically.
LikeLike
So true. The rhetoric is always cranked up to 11, but the speakers are aimed all over the place and the author doesn’t discriminate at all in word choice. Anything that sounds extreme will do. The result is cacaphony.
LikeLike
This causal argument does not primarily focus on the writer’s main point/claim, which is that 9/11 made America more racist. The writer did not thoroughly explain why or how 9/11 made America more racist. They briefly stated that racism became a bigger problem in our world after 9/11 happened, but did not provide factual evidence for their claim and were not clear on exactly who America was racist towards after this horrific event took place. They should have focused this argument more on racism and provided facts on how and why America became more racist after 9/11. This would have tied the whole casual argument together, making it more intriguing to read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are exactly right, ChickenNugget, each of the four times you make your point.
🙂
LikeLike
The essay does not mention what group was being prejudiced against (muslims) until the 2nd to last sentence. While it is obvious who they are referring to, not mentioning the group at all makes the essay all the more vague. In addition to this, they don’t go into detail on any of the outcomes of the resulting racism after 9/11. They don’t mention how the new harsh foreign policies and TSA harmed minorities, and dismisses how muslim people are in some ways becoming more welcome then they were right after 9/11.
It’s also worth mentioning that 9/11 was not 1 mans decision, there were a lot of people voluntarily in on the job.
LikeLike
Good for you pointing out that the subject of the essay is Prejudice (religious prejudice to be precise) not Racism. The author may have suppressed naming “the group” to mask how little of their “evidence” had anything to do with a specific prejudice.
LikeLike
I was confused what the main thesis of the Casual argument. The title was that 9/11 made the US more racist but there wasn’t any proof that this was true. Although there were more precautions taken at TSA this doesn’t mean our country is more racist. Also, family guy and SouthPark didn’t have much to do with anything since they have been making a lot of out-of-pocket jokes that have nothing to do with 9/11. If there was an argument and proof of what changed besides more security at airports then it would have been more clear what they were trying to argue.
LikeLike
While it’s unfair to expect any short essay to “prove” anything at all, SayCheese, you’re completely correct to point out that there’s not much evidence of anything here beyond one writer’s impression that the world has gotten more contentious since 2000.
LikeLike
Before even reading the submission, the author’s unwillingness or inability to hit the “return” key even once indicates that it will read, at best, as a poor execution of a good idea. Unfortunately, my hopes were dashed upon reading the first sentence, which opens the author’s proposal (which I find quite reasonable!) to immediate critique.
“It seems that racism has been around since before the dawn of time itself.”
I find this unlikely! In-group out-group dynamics are certainly part of human behavior, spanning back to the days of hunter gathers, but racism is downstream from race, which is not inherent to the human experience. Race is a socially constructed identity based on ethnic, linguistic, and cultural difference and did not even exist in its “modern” form until several hundred years ago. To argue the first sentence here would take hours, at minimum. Such a needlessly dramatic and debatable opening irreparably sabotages the causal draft.
LikeLike
Nicely observed! Anyone who got past the first sentence, GB, found little else beyond more needless drama and debatable claims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you.
I will be the first to admit my love of a certain level of drama — it makes the mind race, the heart pound, and reminds one that they are alive. To debate claims, additionally, is an entertaining (if typically fruitless) way to pass time and sharpen the mind. However, I like to think that my easily observed love of hyperbole and dramatic language is more stylistic flair than substance-less musing. This is, admittedly, a self-serving conception. Time will reveal it for truth or a lie.
LikeLike
This is all to say, I just wish the author had picked better dramatic claims to argue about. Dramatic claims are fun and can really capture a reader’s imagination.
LikeLike
Not fruitless, surely, but the fruit it bears is not to everyone’s taste.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Respectfully, this argument is flawed in too many ways to count. The author makes an extremely bold claim within the first few sentences and then proceeds to take the rest of his/her paper expressing unsupported, unsubstantiated “sub-claims” that really don’t further his MAIN claim at all. Language like “The media turned the situation into a joke. Tabloids were printing new conspiracy theories every day…” seems like nothing more than Fiction to me, since no source is referenced and the language used sounds extremely opinionated and “preachy”. Since I disagree with the majority of their claims, the purpose of this Causal Argument was to change my mind– and since the claims were unsupported, and spoken with biased and unprofessional rhetoric (which turned my mind off from being changed), they were unsuccessful in doing that.
LikeLike
That’s a compelling takedown, Sinatraman. You’re right to resist all the sloppy rhetoric and claim-slinging. Just one caution about levels of proof: high-stakes fundamental arguments of great consequence require very robust proof, but short “editorials” can’t be expected to back up their claims with citation. What we can and should demand before we change our mind is that they at least choose the right details to support their allegations. The merest mention of subway attacks against Muslims, or border refusals, or the infiltration of mosques, or ANY anecdotal references to visible or quantifiable expressions of prejudice could have been included here to benefit the argument without rising to the level of proof.
LikeLike
Personally, I do not think that this causal argument had the evidence it needed to prove that racism has increased from 9/11. From reading just this portion of this essay, it seems that the author was just speaking from opinion and not actual facts they had found from research. The claim they made with little to no support made the information they were trying to share come off a little bit hazy. They did not make it clear to the readers which group was being discriminated against, and they also did not explain the premise of 9/11 to the readers who may have never heard of it before. Respectfully, I do not think they clearly show a cause-and-effect relationship here.
LikeLike
I have to agree I was not convinced. 🙂
LikeLike
At the beginning of this individual’s essay, they use the phrase “in the dawn of time” to talk to their audience about how long racism has been around however saying this didn’t really make any sense because I’m not sure what period they referring to especially if it was around where there weren’t any humans. There are many other flaws in this essay but mainly it doesn’t really tell in detail how 9/11 has made America more racist. The essay repeatedly goes on about how 9/11 affects America but only briefly. The author needs to elaborate more on what they are talking about instead constantly only bringing up how this event affects America. What groups were affected? How were they affected? How has this event made such a huge impact on those groups and America as a whole? There should be more evidence to back up what they are saying as well.
LikeLike
True, IA, but don’t get into the habit of demanding “sufficient proof” from every essay. Proof is rare. What you CAN demand is that claims are supported at least by pertinent and compelling details.
LikeLike
The author claims an event such as 9/11 caused an increase in prejudiced behaviors towards Muslims but fails to deliver the key takeaways. The author had mistakes where they had run-on sentences repeating one after another without delivering. They failed to explain the group targeting the Muslim community, they don’t explain what the specific changes are, and they introduce the topic but don’t provide facts proving their statement is correct. Mentioning TSA and how they changed the expectations and rules as to what passengers can bring was a start but after that everything was vague.
LikeLike
My recollection is that the biggest ramp-up in TSA screenings of passengers at the airport (and the restrictions that prevent anyone but ticketed passengers from entering the Gates, and in particular the requirement that we remove our shoes pre-flight) occurred NOT after 9/11/2000 but more than a year later, after Richard Reid tried to smuggle a “shoe-bomb” onto a flight in December, 2001.
LikeLike