(Anthropology!) Does this paragraph make sense?

Question

There were several changes that occurred as a result of the September 11, 2001, bombing of the Twin Towers in The States. An Anthropologist would analyze these changes based on how humanity was affected, culturally and from a global perspective. For example, many people’s overall view of Islam has changed as a result of the crash. Many Muslims were eventually judged based on their cultural background. Look at it this way – would an Iranian man or woman living in America (specifically) still be looked at the same way he or she was after the crash? Probably not. When that Iranian man travels back to his country, he will be suspected and questioned a lot more then a European person going back to his country would. People who have never met that Iranian man may look at his more suspiciously. Before September 11, 2001, the word “terrorist” was rarely used to describe someone from an Islamic background.

This is supposed to be an Anthropological view/explanation.......

Answer 1

It just is not that meaningful. Twenty years from now almost nobody will remember the above and an Iranian-American may well enter the race for the presidency. Thirty years from now maybe a person whose father was born in Irak. I mean we`re talking about the land of the free here.

Answer 2

The paragraph makes sense, but I am not sure that you explain why this is an anthropological answer. As an anthropologist you will want to explore the underlying social factors that leads people to think and act the way they do. Of course I imagine this is part of a larger paper that explains the changes that occurred, and how the global society and regional societies were affected, as well the way American perceptions of Muslims (as people) and Islam (as an ideology) changed. Your last sentence brings up an interesting point - I imagine that politicians, especially right-wingers, may have considered Muslims terrorists before 9/11, but it was not part of our common culture. Today it is.
(You would want to look at newspapers/journals from pre-9/11 - for example after the first World Trade Centre bombing).

Anyone who think the attack was an "inside job" by America is too poorly informed to be answering questions here.

Answer 3

If you are asking me if I look at people and countries differently due to sept.11.If I look at Iranian people with suspension and question there beliefs and culture. If you are asking me if I ever used the word terrorism and Muslims and the word Iran in a sentence before 9-11.. the answer is yes I now look at ALL people who resemble Muslims or people from that part of the world with suspension and no before 9-11 I never used the words terrorism, Muslims and Iran in the same sentence I have since. And I am sorry I know that not all people from that part of the world are bad people.But like most Americans I am ignorant to the cultures and religions over there so therefore all are bad.

Answer 4

I don't really think that 9-11 was caused by Muslims or Iranian, it was caused by political issues and religion, I know ever since this all happened everything has changed the way people look at Muslim believers I think people should really go deeper and find out why the twin towers were bombed before judging Muslims. I believe 9-11 was an in site job done by the American
Government and they had to blame someone didn't they. I think Muslim deserves to be treated better. Funny think why do people only judge the Muslims from the middle east and not the ones from other parts of the world.......................................

Answer 5

It should be: "may look at him", not: "his". Also, most of them were from Saudi Arabia, and none were Iranian. Pakistan is where most of the terrorist training takes place, now. Many people are of the view that the USA doesn't want to capture or kill Osama Bin Ladin, because a lot of rich Americans are making even more money, and the military is maintaining its power base. which it would otherwise lose, should an outbreak of peace unfortunately (for them) occur. Hence the need to manufacture the "weapons of mass destruction" excuse; before which, in Vietnam, it was the "Domino Theory". Next it may well be: "To prevent a future nuclear threat." Any excuse will do, for them.

Answer 6

I might also focus on the rescuers who put their life at risk to get some of the people out of the towers before they collapsed. I might also mention something about our tendency to let differences fade when confronted by a common enemy. Looking suspiciously at Iranians is probably more about logical conclusions than any underlying biases or bigotry on the part of Americans. The attack on the twin towers was primarily undertaken by Saudis but a sophisticated observer would know that the Iranian leadership is our enemy and want to destroy our way of life.

Answer 7

The problem with your very assignment here is that it's more sociology than anthropology.
Your paragraph makes sense, yes, but I'm not sure why you chose Iranian as your example of someone affected, rather than Afghani or Iraqui. And I'm assuming you'll be going through that later and correcting your grammatical errors and formalizing wording into something more suitable for a (I'm assuming again) college level paper. Other than that, you get your point across, and it makes sense.