9/11 and the Chaotic Evolution Of American English

• September 11, 2001
• American English
• The chaotic aftermath and American English
• Lest we forgot
• Fear and intolerance
• Intercultural miscommunication
• Conclusion
• References

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

On September 11, 2001, I had planned to spend the day working from home in Toronto, Canada. It was a clear and sunny day and I was having my usual morning coffee when the phone rang. The call was from my younger sister, who is an investment analyst in a famous financial tower in downtown Toronto. “A plane just crashed into the World Trade Center,” she gasped. “It’s on CNN. We’re watching it on the trading floor televisions right now.” After I hung up the phone, I immediately turned on CNN, which was broadcasting a live shot of the damaged tower. It had a gaping hole in its side and a great deal of thick black smoke pouring out. From a distance, tiny specks that were people could be seen waving frantically from broken windows. They waved cloths as the announcers spoke to people near the scene. I hoped, along with the visibly shaken announcers, that those desperate people would be rescued soon. As a man was being interviewed, the viewers could see live as a second, much larger plane, swerved and crashed into the second tower. There was a huge ball of fire and more black smoke. It seemed too coincidental to be another accident. The man being interviewed hastily excused himself and ran up the street, before there was another attack, he explained fearfully.

Then the “jumpers” started. The remaining tiny specks that were people began to hurl themselves to the ground like rag dolls. CNN broadcast these images, but then stopped after that horrifying day, perhaps as a courtesy to the devastated families they left behind. It would later be learned that those who jumped leapt to their deaths to avoid being burned alive – and many managed to place calls to their loved ones to say goodbye before doing so. A frantic young woman was stopped by a CNN reporter as she fled the area. “People are jumping!” she cried, her voice shaking. “I saw about forty people jump from the towers! They were falling everywhere!”

This was hell and I was watching it on live television. Many screams and gasps were heard when the first tower collapsed and my sister called me again. “They are evacuating our building,” she said. “They think we might be attacked, too.” Later, after the second tower had collapsed, I received another phone call from her. She was with her co-workers at a downtown pub. That was when she told me about the “Cantor Fitzgerald guys”. All of the computer monitors on the floor where she was stationed always had a small box on the right hand corner that showed the real time Cantor Fitzgerald monitor in New York. When the first plane hit, she said worriedly, the Cantor Fitzgerald screens had “flatlined.” Her co-workers tried to call their friends at Cantor Fitzgerald, which was located on a high floor of one of the towers, but to no avail – no one was answering the phone and they feared the worst. It later turned out that Cantor Fitzgerald lost most of its employees that day. The “Cantor Fitzgerald guys” to whom she referred had been among the first casualties.

My sister then asked me about the second tower and I did not know what to say, except that it was gone. She and her co-workers were shocked. There were Canadian former co-workers who worked in the World Trade Center, most of whom, it would later be learned, had perished, among the thousands of deaths that day. Shortly afterwards, CNN was broadcasting that the Pentagon too had been struck by a plane and images of the damage were shown – it was the first successful attack on a U.S. government building since the war of 1812, when Canadians burned down the White House (though it should be mentioned that Canada was not officially a country until 1867). The days that followed were chaotic and the news announcers too were under considerable pressure, partly due to the attacks, but also because of anthrax threats. The United States, simply put, was a nation paralyzed by fear. This fear still continues – it is the fear of the unknown, whether it is the unknown attacker or the unexpected attack. Yet how has it all changed the language?

AMERICAN ENGLISH

American English has long been influenced by American history. When the pioneers living in the new world had children, they taught their children to pronounce words the way they were written in order to keep things simple. This was the first break from British English and the first hint of what would come to be known as American English.

As the nation grew, so did its own variety of the English language. Many words and expressions today, for example, are derived from the railroads which were built across the land in the nineteenth century. These include one track mind, to backtrack, to sidetrack, to be on the right track, to name a few. The railroad was important as it linked the country together. The game of poker, which was played on boats along the Mississippi River, even had an influence on American English. From here we have such terms as poker face, deal me in, deal me out, blue chip (now referring to stocks). The word buck, which now indicates a dollar, also has its origins from the early days, when North American fur trappers used buckskins in trade, as there was not yet a common currency. From the German immigrants came contributions of “kaput”, “kindergarten”, Italians gave us “pasta, pizza, bravo”, and Mexican cowboys brought “ranch, rodeo, loco, lasso”. “No can do” and “Long time no see” are colloquial reminders of the natives who first populated the land. The importance of African Americans cannot be ignored as they too played a major part in the evolution of the language. In fact, some linguists believe that the distinct “southern” accent of Americans in certain southern states is the direct result of wealthy white southern children being raised by their African nannies.

In the late 20th century, technology added a number of words to the language, such as Internet, email, the web, cyber space, and the movies also played a part. “Star Wars” was even used by an American president to describe not a movie, but a proposed missile defense system. All of these factors and others influenced American culture and the variety of English which has come to be known as American English.

THE CHAOTIC AFTERMATH AND AMERICAN ENGLISH

The horrific events which took place on September 11, 2001 had a sudden and enormous impact on American life, American attitudes in general, and therefore, the evolution of American English. Most television sets were tuned into CNN that day and the days following, so that Americans could keep abreast of what was transpiring in their nation. As a result, the media played an important role in the developing attitudes of the people.

A sudden and dramatic change in American English became apparent shortly after the attacks. In the days and months to follow, certain events would take place that were to introduce new words to American English and change the meanings of already existing ones.

In the past, Arabic words had not been used much in American English but that was soon to change. The U.S. government was quick to inform the public that “Al Qaeda” was believed responsible for the attacks. In Arabic, al qaeda means “the base”, but to Americans, it meant something very different. The media portrayed the “Al Qaeda” organization as a group of fanatic terrorists who were Muslim extremists intent on destroying America and all within it. They were the “bad guys” of the new millennium and were portrayed as such, though it must be mentioned that no one to date has been able to prove otherwise. In the first days of the aftermath, Al Qaeda and its suicide hijackers were referred to by the still shocked U.S. media as “Arab terrorists”, then “Muslim terrorists.”

CNN, at this time, did not seem to take into account that the entire world was watching. In the past, CNN was viewed primarily by Americans and Americans are still perhaps the implied viewers of the news broadcasts. Although there is a growing Islamic community in the United States, the majority of the population tends to be Christian. Perhaps that is the reason that CNN did not feel it inappropriate to link another culture and religion to the word “terrorist.” One might even argue that the fact that the U.S. President is himself a Conservative Christian has influenced the media into assuming that the current “norm” in America is or should be Christian; thus, the implied viewers in this case may have been Christian Americans. It is interesting to note that Christian terrorists are never referred to as such by CNN or other North American networks, even when these groups are religiously motivated.

In any case, the results of the remarks were staggering. This lack of cultural sensitivity, unintentional as it may have been, may have been a factor that caused an immediate backlash against law abiding Arab and Muslim Americans. Mosques received bomb threats, women in Muslim garb were the victims of verbal harassment, and numerous individual attacks were reported across the U.S. These included the random beatings of cab drivers who were pulled from their cabs, and the attempted run over of a Pakistani woman by a man in a car, shouting that he was “doing this for my country.” There were so many unprovoked attacks against Arab American and Muslim citizens that the President himself appealed to the public for tolerance and even visited a mosque in an attempt to do damage control. He informed the media and the nation that “Islam is a religion of peace.” First impressions are lasting, however, and some Americans still erroneously view “Islam” and “Muslim” as negative concepts which should not be part of American culture.

This has perhaps altered the American concept of self, so as not to so easily accept anything non-Christian, an idea that may also find its unspoken roots in the religious beliefs of an openly Christian president. According to a memorandum written by Richard Nixon in 1967, “Potential presidents are measured against an ideal that’s a combination of leading man, God, father, hero, pope, king, with maybe just a touch of the avenging furies thrown in.” (The Selling of the President, McGinniss ) The concept of the American as the good and just Christian in the “struggle against terror” is furthered by the current president’s frequent usage of the words “evil” and “evil doers” to describe anti-American terrorists in speeches and press conferences. One is reminded of a southern preacher warning his flock against defying the word of the bible. Prior to September 11, “evil” was a word heard primarily in cartoon like action movies and church sermons, with very biblical connotations. Is the current usage of it a mere coincidence?

It should also be mentioned that Canadians too may have been greatly influenced by the U.S. media. Shortly after CNN’s coverage and remarks, Muslim and Arab communities in the Toronto area complained of Muslims being harassed and verbally threatened. Toronto, the multi-cultural capital of Canada, was a place where no one expected such a thing to happen.

The next Arabic word to enter American English was “jihad”. In Arabic, “jihad” can have many meanings but most frequently refers to the struggle of Muslims to lead a pure life and follow the five pillars of Islam .“Jihad” was also interpreted by a few extremists to mean “holy war”, which was how Al Qaeda used it. In a taped video which was broadcast by CNN to all Americans, Osama Bin Laden, the founder of the Al Qaeda organization, frequently mentioned his “jihad” as a violent holy war against the United States. Thus, “jihad” too ended up being erroneously perceived as a very negative thing in American English. According to many American reporters, it is no more than a fanatic holy war waged by Muslims against innocent American civilians. Americans (and Canadians) might also find it difficult to understand that “jihad” might mean different things to different Muslims, as such a concept does not exist in their own culture or language. The media, however, does not consist of linguists who might be able to shed light on the intricacies of Arabic to English translations and we are left with the easiest one – that it simply refers to a wish to make war against non-Muslims. It is also conveniently the most sensational translation – one that conjures up images of “evil-doers” attacking the innocent, and instills fear in the population.

As it turned out, Al Qaeda were found to have been operating in Afghanistan, with the permission of the Taliban regime. The Taliban were a group of religious scholars who practiced their own brand of Islam, which did not afford any rights to women, and were known for their brutality. I was struck by what Taliban has come to mean in American English when one of my peers here in North America recently referred to a man he knew as a Taliban because he was a male chauvinist! Well known as the word is now, however, it is unlikely that “Taliban” will have the same staying power as “jihad” in American English. The newest term from Afghanistan that has been added to American news broadcasts and conversations is “loya jirga”, the convened meeting of Afghan tribal leaders who gather to choose a new leader.

Due to cited security concerns, the U.S. military was called into action on numerous fronts, and since September 11, the media has broadcast daily updates on “America’s New War”, “the President’s War on Terror.” There have also been public briefings on the military’s role at home and overseas. Words and expressions which in the past were found only in action movies have become a permanent fixture in what is now called “the new normal”. The “new normal” might include a “clear and present danger”, “an imminent threat”, a “state of alert”, “code red”, “code yellow”, “vigilance”, a warning of a “dirty bomb” or a mention of “weapons of mass destruction.”

The State of the Union Address of an American President is considered to reflect the general state of the nation and is therefore the most viewed and heard presidential speech every year. In his 2001 State of the Union Address, George W. Bush began by announcing that the United States was a nation at war and it was a war on terror. In the middle of his speech, which included detailed military objectives, he stated “We are protected from attack only by vigorous action abroad, and increased vigilance at home.” Following his speech, Americans were frequently reminded by the Attorney General to “be vigilant.” According to Webster’s dictionary, to be vigilant means to be continuously on a state of alert. Neither the President nor the Attorney General ever mentioned what or – more importantly whom – citizens were supposed to be on alert for. This lack of clarification leaves confused citizens guessing how to interpret these statements and the results vary.

On a flight from Los Angeles to Toronto not long after September 11, for example, the flight was diverted when an American flight attendant reported receiving death threats from a Middle Eastern passenger. A S.W.A.T. team stormed the plane and arrested the passenger. According to some Canadians on the flight, the offending passenger was no more than an Iranian man who had tried to smoke in the restroom, and then subsequently argued about it with the flight attendant. One indignant passenger told the Canadian news media “He was arrested for smoking while Iranian!” Unfortunately, the arrested man, who continued to deny making any death threats, received a sentence of approximately 12 months in a U.S. jail for the alleged argument. It would be interesting to see the transcripts of his court statement and study his words, as what is perceived by one culture as a threat is no more than an acceptable manner of self-expression to another. Perhaps, too, the idea of “vigilance” means different things to different individuals.

Some words seem to have changed in meaning, while others have merely become more commonplace. Before September 11, “hero” was no longer a common word, but is now poignantly used when referring to the men and women in uniform who lost their lives that fateful day, not to mention some of the civilian victims. Hero has become a common and cherished word that has not changed in meaning. “Detainee”, on the other hand, is another matter. According to Webster’s dictionary, “to detain” means “to keep from leaving.” These days, however, a “detainee” seems to be either a prisoner of war who has been imprisoned far from his homeland or a potential “enemy of the state” who is such because he seems suspicious and is therefore jailed indefinitely without legal representation.

This chaotic situation has received much criticism from human rights advocates but is more and more accepted as an inevitable part of “the new normal.” In its detailed recommendations to the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), Human Rights Watch states “All detention facilities used by the INS should reflect the non-accused, non-criminal status of all INS detainees. Therefore, the INS should never house its detainees in local jails, prisons, or any other facility intended to hold accused or convicted criminal populations.” A rule introduced shortly after September 11 allows the INS to “detain” people for an undefined period without charge. There are currently estimated to be hundreds of such Middle Eastern “detainees” in prisons in the U.S., some of whom are guilty of no more than minor visa violations. According to Amnesty International, some detainees have been held for 50 days before being charged with any violation and are chained and shackled whenever moved. Thus, one might argue that these “detainees” are not “detainees” at all, but rather prisoners, or that perhaps “detainee” in American English has changed in its meaning, so as to include prisoners.

To further add to the militancy and confusion of national security, Americans are encouraged repeatedly by the government to “report any suspicious activity”, “suspicious” not once being clearly defined. One must recall how the media at the onset was the voice that the public relied on for information and that voice tended to repeat “Muslim” and “Arab” while referring to the terrorists. Thus, a certain image of that which is suspicious came into existence, and it involved the Middle East.

This has led to Arab Americans being unfairly removed from flights and, in general, less tolerance of other cultures. Since October 2001, in fact, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) has received over 60 reports involving 100 passengers being expelled from aircraft, some of whom were Arab American, others who were perceived as being Middle Eastern. On June 4, 2002, 4 civil lawsuits were filed against American, Continental, Northwest, and United Airlines by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). The 5 plaintiffs in the lawsuit were men who were either Arabic or perceived to be Middle Eastern, and were allegedly ejected from their flights prior to take off when other passengers reported feeling “uncomfortable” with them present (these details are from the website of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee).

An acquaintance of mine – a Canadian of eastern European descent with a Middle Eastern appearance – currently works in the U.S. Since September 11, he has complained, U.S. border guards take great interest in his car whenever he wishes to cross to or from the U.S. “They search everything now – everything!” On the other hand, another acquaintance, who has dyed light blonde hair, has experienced no noticeable delays when passing through U.S. Customs, except that they do politely ask her to turn on her notebook computer. Has American culture regressed to the days when fair meant good and anything dark was perceived as evil?

LEST WE FORGET

Perhaps the most dramatic change in the meaning of words is the regular usage of “Ground Zero”, the site of the destroyed World Trade Center. Instead of a war zone, this one happens to be a pit in the financial center of America’s most famous city. Out of respect to the victims, it is unlikely that “Ground Zero” will ever mean anything but the site of the former Twin Towers in the years to come. Reporters and politicians alike lower their voices when mentioning “Ground Zero”, where a planned memorial will likely be erected

Another phenomenon is the resurgence of patriotism and its linguistic implications , though it is now “pride”. “Freedom” and “democracy” were words and concepts used mostly in the Reagan era, yet they have re-appeared as a nation tries to recover from the attacks and brace itself for the “imminent” future ones the government announces on a weekly basis. After the attacks, the Department of Homeland Security was created to oversee domestic security and perhaps reassure the public with its name.

FEAR AND INTOLERANCE

How do Americans react when continually warned of a possible attack on land, sea, or in the air, possibly one that is chemical, biological, or nuclear in nature? They might become more stressed and need an outlet, perhaps finding it in their renewed patriotism, along with a touch of seeking revenge. A clear example is the popularity of a recent country music song entitled “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue”, whose lyrics include “this big dog will bite if you rattle his cage,” “We’re gonna kick you in the a-s, it’s the American way,” and “Hey, Uncle Sam.”

The movie industry, a key player in American culture, also currently mirrors the national sentiment. Patriotic action war movies are among the most popular movies at the moment, perhaps because the victims, in these cases, are able to triumph against “evil doers.” The effect of such war action movies might be a continued increase in military terms being introduced to the language. Only time will tell. It is also interesting to note that with the release of more and more military movies, the American mentality seems to become more war-like. In a recent CNN poll, 75% of Americans favored a military strike against Saddam Hussein, the latest “enemy of the state”. Saddam Hussein, dictator though he may be, has had no proven connection to the attacks of September 11, though he has been accused of planning to produce “weapons of mass destruction.” Since the disappearance of Bin Laden from the media, there has been no visible villain – until, that is, the mention of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps psychologists would be better qualified to delve into the reasons for the media and the public needing a visible villain that may be defeated. Still, it is interesting to note that the increase in U.S. military action has led to an increase in U.S. action movies, and perhaps even a desire by the media to make life mirror those same movies, with good guys, bad guys, etc. The language does tend to reflects this.

Some uses of American English since September 11 have bordered on the absurd. The media dubbed an Al Qaeda operative who attempted unsuccessfully to light a bomb in his shoe on an overseas flight the “shoe bomber.” The President has stated that Osama Bin Laden is “wanted dead or alive” (a reference to the wild west days of the U.S., perhaps placing himself in the role of sheriff), and General Tommy Franks has called looking for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan “like chasing a chicken in a barnyard.” The secretary of defense, when questioned about the implications of Al Qaeda fighters who refused to be taken alive, replied “There are some folks who want to fight to the death and we hope to oblige them.” These statements have not perturbed the American people; rather, the media and the people welcome them. Despite what might be perceived as extreme and militant speeches including countries that are an “axis of evil” and his bold declaration that “it is the policy of this government to topple Saddam Hussein”, George W. Bush presently has a very high approval rating among the American people. Therefore, we may surmise that his words tend to reflect the current national sentiment. Perhaps, as Richard Nixon stated, the President must indeed be the hero in the eyes of his people. Heroes, of course, are even more heroic when they encounter a villain. But who, where or what is the villain in this movie?

It would be interesting to learn more about the true motives of Osama Bin Laden, for how could there exist in the 21st century such a two dimensional villain, who dwelled in a cave, plotting the destruction of New York and Washington? Has the media portrayed him as a cruel and insane evil doer in order to satisfy a public craving and sensationalize – or is that really what he is? Only time will tell.

INTERCULTURAL MISCOMMUNICATION

An international debate seems to have been ignited by the definition of the word terrorist. In a bold declaration, George W. Bush recently announced that if you harbor a terrorist or help a terrorist in any way, you too are a terrorist. His reasons for doing so are evident and involve matters of national security. If those who aid terrorists are also judged to be equally culpable, fewer individuals and groups might support them. Numerous U.S. based Islamic charities have been shut down since September 11, accused of funneling funds to known terrorist organizations overseas. Many of the charities, however, claimed to be unaware that the overseas humanitarian organizations to which they sent the funds used a portion of them for such activities. In an unusual display of disagreement by the Egyptian government, the U.S. definition of terrorist has been rejected by the President of Egypt, who has repeatedly requested better clarification of the term – a classic example of the need for better communication and diplomacy among world cultures. Statesmen should remember that wars have been started due to cultural misunderstandings and miscommunication in the past.

Another example of intercultural miscommunication is the ongoing case of Zacarias Moussaui, an Algerian national who is on trial in the United States and accused of being one of the September 11 hijackers who did not make it onto the plane. Moussaui has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the court proceedings and had numerous angry outbursts in the courtroom, condemning the U.S. government. Moussaui has been portrayed by the western media as being insane. However, one must keep in mind that he is being judged by American culture, which does look kindly upon “breaking the rules” or angry displays of emotion, which are more permissible in Middle Eastern culture (as is evidenced by the loud haggling one can hear at markets across the Middle East). That is not to say that he is not a confessed criminal, yet how can we expect him to conform to American culture when it is that very culture he, as an admitted Al Qaeda operative, surely seeks to defy?

Then there is the Canadian question. Perhaps because we are a member of the Commonwealth and still somewhat influenced by English culture, Canadians pride themselves on trying to “keep the peace” and accepting others. This is at times misunderstood by our neighbours south of the border as being weak and ineffectual. Unfortunately, certain elements of the media have attempted to exploit this. Perhaps driven by a need to sensationalize and thus improve ratings over the competitors, some networks will stoop to almost anything. In a recent news segment of “60 Minutes”, a popular ABC news program, Canada was portrayed as being a safe haven for Middle Eastern terrorists. According to the announcer, shortly after September 11, “Washington” called the Canadian Prime Minister and ordered him to change Canadian Immigration policy, which was viewed as a threat to the national security of the U.S.. The Prime Minister allegedly replied that Canadian Immigration policies are made in Ottawa, not Washington. The same segment failed to mention that not one of the September 11 hijackers was based in Canada and all of the terrorists had gained access to the flights and detailed information from within the United States! It should also be mentioned that on September 11, when U.S. air space was closed and international flights to the U.S. were diverted to Canada, many Canadian communities provided the American passengers with both room and board, out of the goodness of their hearts.

Canadians continue to be greatly influenced by the aftermath of September 11, both economically and linguistically.

CONCLUSION

“Nine eleven” are no longer simply two numbers – they are synonymous with “the day America was attacked on September 11, 2001.” Has American culture changed because of the attacks? Indeed it has, and this is most evident when one examines the sudden evolution of the language. With its increase in military jargon, extreme statements, negative connotations of Arabic words and unclear use of words, such as “suspicious” and “detain”, one may conclude that the “new normal”, unfortunately, does not include a society that is as culturally sensitive or peaceful as it was prior to that tragic day.

How do we, as English teachers, deal with this in a classroom that is filled with foreign students from across the world? I cannot help but remember Mustafa, a Libyan student who was in my advanced level conversation class some years ago. Following the end of the class, he posted his address on the school bulletin board and offered an open invitation to the entire school to visit him and stay in his house in Tripoli! Mustafa was a warm and welcome addition to the class and all who came in contact with him could not help but like him. I suppose, if 9/11 had transpired back then, I would have had to explain to Mustafa, as he looked at me with his kind, trusting eyes, why most of the “detainees” were his fellow Arabs, not to mention the reason “jihad”, a beloved word of Muslims worldwide, now had a very negative connotation in American English, the language he was so diligently studying.

I am not so sure I like this new normal.
“In the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and the bravery and generosity of ordinary citizens, we have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like.” George W. Bush, 2001 State of the Union address.

REFERENCES

2001 State of the Union Address, www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee www.adc.org

Human Rights Watch www.hrw.org/reports98/us-imming

Institute of Islamic Information and Education www.irshad.org/islam/iiie_18.htm

“Anti-Arab Passions sweep the U.S.”
www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/13/backlash