American Exceptionalism

The United States is known for many things, whether that be a mix of cultures, strong nationalism, or a fight for freedom and justice. All these characteristics were made clear in Bush’s speech in 2001 addressing the horrific tragedy that occurred at the World Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. Although it is said the goal of al-Qaeda was to break down our nation, the incident on 9/11 instead was viewed as an opportunity to bring together not only our country, but surrounding nations and allies. The common view in our nation was made clear by George W. Bush, when he stated, “The advance of human freedom… now depends on us… We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail”. However, one begins to wonder, at what price? What key characteristics that make the United States the country that it is was Bush and the rest of our nation willing to give up in order to get “justice” for this “crime against humanity”?

Questions like these are addressed continuously by Noam Chomsky in his post, Looking Back at 9/11 a Decade Later. However, a claim he makes very prominently is an incident that occurred a decade after Bush made his speech: the killing of Osama bin Laden. Not even necessarily criticizing the killing of bin Laden, but instead the way in which he was killed and treated, Chomsky discusses how, “the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law, beginning with the invasion itself”. One could argue, as Chomsky does, that the killing of bin Laden was done in such an inhumane way that it defied everything that we, as the United States, claim our nation stands for. This concept is known as “American exceptionalism”, in which, when faced with a political crime as large scale as terrorism, the United States begins to pick and choose which “inalienable rights” they would like to follow through with.

However, it is important to recognize that Bush does address the certain situation as an exception to what the U.S typically has to deal with, as the circumstances of the time themselves were anything but normal. Bush states in his speech, “Americans have known surprise attacks—but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day—and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack”. Considering this event as such an unexpected attack, and such a devastating one at that, it’s fair to expect things in our nation to change. Such a change was proven to be a goal, or possibly a last resort, for the U.S when Bush states, “Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen… Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists… We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans”. Therefore, despite Chomsky’s fair points, one could argue that this was somewhat of a warning to the world that, for the time being, our government was no longer focused on the rights of mankind, but instead the protection of the United States and its citizens.

Nevertheless, no matter how much warning Bush gave, that doesn’t justify the behavior of the U.S before 9/11. Chomsky addresses America’s fault in which we get ourselves involved in the business of other countries, with the benefit of humanity in mind, but almost always end up harming the country in which we invade, such as during the Vietnam War or the “First 9/11” nearly 30 year beforehand. However, despite the killing of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians by the American weapons and the American soldiers, we do not take a stand against such horrendous terrorism until it is our country that is under attack. It is believed that, as stated by Chomsky, “Those whose mission is to rule the world enjoy a more comforting picture”, meaning that countries who have large scale plans for the future tend to only acknowledge what they feel will lead their country to achieve those plans. An action such as this, though the intentions may be good, can lead to great hostility between countries and detrimental results.

With all of these points considered, I personally agree with Chomsky in saying that our nation was guilty of what he refers to as “American exceptionalism” during the time period of 9/11 and decades to follow. However, it’s also important to consider that, in his speech, Bush’s intentions were to not only persuade our nation, but also begin to warn the world that our priorities as a nation could no longer be steered towards the well-being and justice of even our worst enemies, as 9/11 was the wake-up call we needed to see that our nation was no longer “immune from attack”. Therefore, if the topic in question is whether or not 9/11 could have been avoided, then I would say it is fair to believe that such a tragedy was inevitable for our country. I in no means have the intentions of implying that our country "deserved it", but I do believe that after all the attacks we made on other countries, it was ignorant to expect that we would forever be "immune from attack". 

Language is Evolving?

Although I may have chosen this topic simply to play devil’s advocate for this question, I do not believe that makes the points I am going to make any less valid.

As the question does not specify throughout what time periods we should be discussing, I do believe that language has evolved from the place it was centuries ago. I would like to draw attention to, what Neil Postman would call, the “Age of Reason”, but instead refer to this 17th century, post-Enlightenment period as the Age of Education.

Before the emphasis on a print-based culture aroused, education was seen as a luxury, only available for the rich and “worthy”. Because of this, not only is it fair to assume, but studies have shown that illiteracy rates were fairly high in the common people. However, around 1650, the Enlightenment began to spread across European nations, and, in turn, began to spread to the European colonies in the New World. As men and women boarded the Mayflower in 1620 in hopes to find a home for religious freedom, they brought with them immense amounts of books, not only of religious relevance, but also covering topics of math, science, and especially language and literature. This is just one example of how European colonists began the spread of education into America.

Nevertheless, it did not stop there. Following the invention of the printing press, a print-based culture, as Postman often mentions, began to form and spread across the world. Novels, newspapers, and especially pamphlets made their way into the everyday life of America, catching the attention of people of every social class. One majorly important piece of literature to take note of is Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

Observe an excerpt from this pamphlet.

“But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families . . .”

Said to be one of the most read works of literature at the time, it is clear that Thomas Paine was able to address an issue that appealed to all audiences, while also fancying the rules of proper literature.

Considering this post revolves around education, it is valid that I point out the multitude of universities developing during this time. Some may sound a bit familiar.

·         Harvard University: founded 1636

·         Yale University: founded 1701

·         UPENN: founded 1740

·         Princeton University: founded 1746

·         Columbia University: founded 1754

·         Brown University: founded 1764

·         Dartmouth University: founded 1769

·         Cornell University: founded 1865

It therefore comes to no surprise that not a single University we formally know as the “Ivy Leagues” was formed until mid-17^th century because, prior to the Enlightenment, there was no such need for so many large universities. However, once a spark in interest towards education was lit, it to this day has yet to burn out.

An interest in politics began to arise far heavier than ever before, which is shown very prevalently in the amount of lecture halls in colonial times or the nature of debates such as those of Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglas. One could argue that this certain interest in long lectures and debates has begun to decrease in the past century, but it would be foolish to argue that the emphasis on education has done the same. For example, in 1965 a law was passed known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in order to ensure that a full educational opportunity for every individual remained the priority of our nation. Therefore, I believe it is fair to argue that, even if almost every person in our nation was to not get an education higher than secondary school (which is not in any way the case presently), they would still be more advanced in language as a whole than the illiterate commoners that were so dominant in pre-Enlightenment times.

Which brings me to the conclusion that, although there are many arguments stating language has devolved in the past century, ones which I could not, in my right mind, disagree with, I must also point out that it would be ignorant to ignore how language and education have also improved immensely. In the past three or four centuries, we have experienced such drastic evolving in language that, in my opinion, would take more than a few “lol”s and “brb”s to justify its disregard.

Works Cited

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Philadelphia: W. and T. Bradford, 1776. Print