The Owl
(An Answer to Amiri Baraka’s Someone Blew Up America’s Question of “Who?”)
The amount of corruption within the United States’ violent involvement in the Middle East is almost unreal. Unfortunately, the wars have been too real—half a million deaths in the first year of Iraqi Freedom alone (Rogers). These wars have been labeled--the violence, filtered-- to fit a specific agenda. Whether the deaths are deemed an acceptable loss in the name of national security, or as a devastating injustice, the reality doesn’t change. Lives have been lost. Lives that will never be brought back. The intention of wars is in part due to attacks on the twins towers on September 11th 2001. When the buildings fell, almost three thousand people died, according
…show more content…
Many conspiracy theories exist about the attacks. Although it is commonly held that the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda is responsible, some think it was an inside job—coming from the United States. Others acknowledge Al-Qaeda as the perpetrator, but blame the cause on past involvement of the United States in the Middle East. One such person is Amiri Baraka. In his poem, Somebody Blew Up America, Baraka points to the larger system as the root cause of violence. He never blames a single entity, but through the use of rhetorical questioning it is obvious as to whom Baraka is accusing as being the real terrorist. Using the word “who” 191 times, Baraka establishes a connection within any reader who feels empathy with victims of anonymous crimes. (IV 1) Who is to blame? Amiri Baraka’s Somebody Blew Up …show more content…
Not only does he mention the “Klan” but also KKK members, David Duke, and Trent Lott. Mentioning Wall Street as the first plantation, manifest destiny, and control of oil serve as a few examples to prove America is the “who”. Slavery made a metaphor to describe the terror induced by white America. The most common verbs in the poem are “own,” “stole,” and “killed” appearing over fifty times total. The language is charged with these slavery trigger words. Not to mention, the graphic details of, “Who cut your nuts off/ Who rape your ma/ Who lynched your pa/ Who got the tar, who got the feathers/ Who had the match, who set the fires”, are a direct life line to black America. This balance between brutal and savage descriptions and epistemological repetition of trigger words makes the target of the poem clear. For it to be any more clear, Baraka would have to name the individuals of which he speaks. Coincidently, he does. 67 individuals—mostly victims—are named by Amiri Baraka. Looking at one pair of victims, the Rosenbergs, is enough to get the picture. Although every name holds an identity and story that is important to Baraka’s portrayal of white America, the specific story of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg is enough to understand. According to the New York Times, “Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg were American citizens executed for conspiracy to commit
In unit six we learned about anthropology and entomology and how forensic scientist use it different cases. Even though entomology was not that useful in The Oklahoma bombing case, anthropology was extremely useful for identifying the victims. Since it was an explosion, Forensic anthropologist had to study different remains of the victim's body and use different techniques (such as examining bone development) to identify who they were. For example, the death toll was originally 169 people (one person higher) than it is now because of an unidentified left leg was found and they couldn’t find the body it originally came from. Later, medical examiners compared the size of the tibia of the leg to other victims right leg. Finally forensic found
African-Americans’/ Affrilachians’ Suffering Mirrored: How do Nikky Finney’s “Red Velvet” and “Left” Capture events from the Past in order to Reshape the Present? Abstract Nikky Finney (1957- ) has always been involved in the struggle of southern black people interweaving the personal and the public in her depiction of social issues such as family, birth, death, sex, violence and relationships. Her poems cover a wide range of examples: a terrified woman on a roof, Rosa Parks, a Civil Rights symbol, and Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State, to name just a few. The dialogue is basic to this volume, where historical allusions to prominent figures touch upon important sociopolitical issues. I argue that “Red Velvet” and “Left”, from Head off & Split, crystallize African-Americans’ /African-Americans’ suffering and struggle against slavery, by capturing events and recalling historical figures from the past.
On August 11-12 of 2017, white nationalist filled the streets of charlottesville and opposed anyone who stood in their way.The poem ”Black Confederate Ghost Story” by Terrance Hayes describes how racism existed in the past and how its presence is seen in significant events around the world today. Throughout this poem, Hayes develops a belief that the confederates deserve to be haunted. In the first part of the poem, the author emphasises himself as a peaceful racially motivated protester, but as the story progresses, his hatred and revenge comes into play. The author’s growing hatred and need for vengeance manifests as the poem progresses revealing the fact that racism exists in the world's present society.
Davis, Jayna. The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing. Nashville: WND, 2004. Print.
In this book, Friedman presents a coherent picture of forces in the Middle East that have led to the Israeli- Palestinian confrontation and to bin Laden and his group of terrorists. Friedman’s articles describe meetings, discussions, and arguments he had with people at all levels of society through out the Middle East. From his extensive travels and through dynamic interactions with the people he derived intense insights into how 9/11 came about, why, and what should be done about it.
The day was September 11th, 2001, a moment in history that will never be forgotten by any American living at the time. It was in the early morning hours on this day that our nation experienced the single most devastating terrorist attack ever carried out on American soil. Images of planes crashing into the World Trade Center, news coverage of buildings on fire, and images of building rubble will forever be imprinted into the history of this great nation. However, it was on one of the darkest days for America that one of the most impassioned speeches ever given by a United States president was spoken. President George W. Bush’s speech addressing the nation after the “9/11” attacks was infused with pathos through his imagery of destruction and
When a giant explosion ripped through Alfred P. Murrah federal building April 19,1995, killing 168 and wounding hundreds, the United States of America jumped to a conclusion we would all learn to regret. The initial response to the devastation was all focused of middle-eastern terrorists. “The West is under attack,”(Posner 89), reported the USA Today. Every news and television station had the latest expert on the middle east telling the nation that we were victims of jihad, holy war. It only took a few quick days to realize that we were wrong and the problem, the terrorist, was strictly domestic. But it was too late. The damage had been done. Because America jumped to conclusions then, America was later blind to see the impending attack of 9/11. The responsibility, however, is not to be placed on the America people. The public couldn’t stand to hear any talk of terrorism, so in turn the White House irresponsibly took a similar attitude. They concentrated on high public opinion and issues that were relevant to Americans everyday. The government didn’t want to deal with another public blunder like the one in Oklahoma City. A former FBI analyst recalls, “when I went to headquarters (Washington, D.C.) later that year no one was interested in hearing anything about Arab money connections unless it had something to do with funding domestic groups. We stumbled so badly on pinpointing the Middle East right off the bat on the Murrah bombing. No one wanted to get caught like that again,”(Posner 90). The result saw changes in the counter terrorism efforts; under funding, under manning, poor cooperation between agencies, half-hearted and incompetent agency official appointees and the list goes on. All of these decisions, made at the hands of the faint-hearted, opened the doors wide open, and practically begged for a terrorist attack. So who’s fault is it? The public’s for being
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
For a second, the U.S. stood still. Looking up at the towers, one can only imagine the calm before the storm in the moment when thousands of pounds of steel went hurdling into its once smooth, glassy frame. People ran around screaming and rubble fell as the massive metal structure folded in on itself like an accordion. Wounded and limping from the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, America carried on, not without anger and fear against a group of innocent Americans, Muslim Americans. Nietzsche’s error of imaginary cause is present in the treatment of Muslim Americans since 9/11 through prejudice in the media, disregard of Muslim civil liberties, racial profiling, violence, disrespect, and the lack of truthful public information about Islam. In this case, the imaginary cause against Muslims is terrorism. The wound has healed in the heart of the U.S. but the aching throb of terrorism continues to distress citizens every day.
The transformation of America is often discussed in both popular media and academic dialogue. Each generation has a name, new technologies define new eras, and events seem only notable when they are “historic”. While major events catch the interest of a broad spectrum of the public consciousness, subtle interactions between actors and slight shifts in beliefs are constantly changing the realities of the world. When the twin towers fell in 2001, the United States seemed to be thrust into a new world of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Jihadists, and a global fight against terrorism; bombs were dropped, ground forces were deployed in foreign states, and anyone who publicly questioned the urgency of war was at risk to be labeled a traitor. This one event was indelibly branded on the consciousness of the world and if often seen as a moment of sudden transformation. Most Americans believe that the troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to the terrorist attacks on the United States and while it is hard to deny that the 9-11 attacks was the impetus for putting boots on the ground, it is imperative that the chain of events following the horror of September 11 are seen to reflect the willingness and wants of actors in control before the towers fell.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 led to a lot of pressure from the public to find those responsible and bring them to “justice”. In order to do so, President Bush declared a war on terrorism just a few days after the attacks, but little did he know that this very decision would also bring devastating consequences to many countries. Over time, people have been losing faith in the war and in its purpose. Consequently, countries whose economies have fallen under the Military Industrial Complex have manufactured a societal fear against Muslims and jihadists. As a result, they are now being stigmatized and portrayed as the enemies of democracy, and of the United States in particular. To make matter worse, it has driven western countries to implement many extreme security measures that undermine the democratic principles they are attempting to spread over the world. The war on terrorism has had many negative consequences on modern society, which include a legitimization crisis of democracy, mainly in the U.S, and the manufacturing of moral panics over security risks that have led to the criminalization and stigmatization of the Arab world.
Throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, words such as jihad, suicide bomber, and al-Qaeda increasingly permeated the collective consciousness of Americans. These words were associated with fear, with terror, with the threat of death, and with the eastern ‘Other’. September 11, 2001 is a day on which most can recall the shaky words of broadcasters and the billowing plumes of smoke that were emitted from the towers of the World Trade Centre when members of the Islamic fundamentalist group al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger airplanes and crashed them into targeted landmarks in the United States. Lawrence Wright’s novel, The Looming Tower, draws upon several years of first-hand research and investigative journalism that reveals the political and historical atmosphere that led to the events of that day. The author composes a rigorous, detailed, and poetic work of nonfiction that illustrates the complex and geographically dispersed histories of Islamic fundamentalism and gives life to the personalities of the men that shaped the ideas that guided al-Qaeda. In the book, the actions of these men are built around narratives of their pasts; narratives of sexual obsession and repulsion, humiliation, torture, and resentment. The novel is rich with detail and divulges the reader in the particularly emotional and personal nuances of men such as Sayyid Qutb, Ayman Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden. In 1978, Edward Said wrote the groundbreaking book, Orientalism, which has since given clarity to the power dynamic between the East and the West, the Occident and the Orient. Orientalism is the pervasive and largely Western tradition of building stereotypical and negative archetypes of people of the Middle East and Asia. Or...
“Why We Fight” is a 2005 documentary, directed by Eugene Jarecki, inquiring the dumbfounded intent of the United States’ recent intrusion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It compiles archival footage and incorporates it with recent interviews, many conducted for the film, but, the film has not revealed anything that hasn’t been exposed to the mass consumption. There is also sufficient contemporary footage as well within this documentary: (1) congressmen making the case for military allocation; (2) the principal actors in the Bush administration quarreling for the obligation of intervening in Iraq; and (3) the 2003 incursion and subsequent occupation. This movie also portrays four Americans whose lives have been directly altered due to the Iraq War. None of
We want “poem that kill”. Here Baraka is using Synecdoche a figurative form to refer to human (black) “stinking whores” he want the reader to know that poem become a powerful and important object so he can use to teach a lesson to the enemy. Moreover, here he writes about his wish to have “poems that wrestle cops into alleys/ /and take their weapons, leaving them dead with tongues pulled out and sent to Ireland”. Author wishes they could undo the role of power so African- Americans take control over the white and black and those from the other side of the world can return to their country where they belong so we can have some kind of peace right here. If only they can reverse that power, it would be a much easier for us. In addition, it sounds like an imaginary fiction of the African-Americans uprising. Baraka says “Knockoff poems for dope selling wops or slick half white//politicians Airplane poems, rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr….tuhtuhtuhtuhtuhtuhtuhtuhtuhtuh rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr… Setting fire and death to whities ass”. Right there the author is referring to enemy as whities that letting them know black people do care, by using weak syllable follow by a strong syllable that is the way Amiri is using an imaginary gun to kill his enemy. He is also telling the white audience, I dare you to try to comprehend it. He used the words as gun to shoot somebody or the enemy. Well words can be hurtful when you take into