Change in Americans

If anything, Amy Waldman’s fictional novel, The Submission, has further opened my eyes to the absurd amount of prejudice toward American Muslims after the attack by al-Qaeda on the World Trade Center. Throughout the book, the former news reporter details the conflict over the selection of a 9/11 memorial designed by a Muslim architect, Mohammad (Mo) Khan. Many Americans cannot see past this man’s name and heritage and respond with outrage toward Mo and his few supporters. Although Waldman’s novel claimed fiction, I found a definite ring of truth in her depiction of American bigotry. As a result, Waldman influenced a change in the way I see some of my fellow countrymen, and in some ways, I have grown outraged and embarrassed by the discriminatory nature of my fellow Americans toward American Muslims. Immediately after the official announcement that a Muslim would design the memorial, “the threats began” (137). The hostile diction of “threats” implies the anger and hatred coming from Americans toward Mo because of his Islamic background. They “promised to burn him as the terrorists had their victims” (137). By showing how the threat-writers compare their actions to that of “the terrorists,” Waldman indirectly characterizes them as wanting revenge for the actions of al-Qaeda. Yet, they do not direct their anger toward the terrorists but instead toward innocent Mo. With this, Waldman implies that these Americans stereotype all Muslims and classify them as terrorists. The same writers accuse Mo of “stabbing America,” using the abusive diction of “stabbing” to indirectly characterize Mo as a criminal when he has not committed a single crime against them (137). Even the government responds and the “FBI placed him under watch” (137). This action alone implies that Americans see Mo as a threat simply because of his ethnicity. Even during his speech at the hearing, audience members respond in hatred toward his religion yelling “‘save America from Islam!’” (245). The urgent connotation that comes with the desperate diction of “save” implies that Americans see Islam and thus Muslims as endangering their country. Whilst reading all of the heinous remarks, I found myself growing angrier and more ashamed of my fellow Americans. Sadly, I recalled a time when I myself witnessed prejudice toward a Muslim when two of my peers labeled my Muslim friend a “terrorist.” The implication that Americans have grouped Muslims as a group of terrorists disgusts me and Waldman’s writing further contributes to my disgust. Nevertheless, the change she implemented within me has opened my eyes to the actions that I must take. While not only targeting people like me who have developed frustration over the intolerance of Americans after 9/11, she also targets the narrow-minded and prompts them to evaluate their own opinions and perhaps learn to see innocent Muslims as lawful rather than criminal.

Claire's Strength

As the controversy revolving around Mohammad (Mo) Kahn’s memorial continues in Amy Waldman’s fiction novel, The Submission, I find a growing admiration for Claire Burwell. She remains the sole member of the jury who experienced a personal loss on that dreadful day when the towers fell on September 11^th: the death of her husband Cal. Nevertheless, she strongly supports Mo’s design for a memorial garden, even after the reveal of his Islamic ethnicity. As debates regarding the memorial continue, Claire stands behind her original selection, having faith in Mo’s design and looking past his identity as a Muslim. Through her characterization of Claire, Waldman shows what it truly means to not only stand up for the right thing, but to have the courage to stand up alone. Claire’s perseverance and belief in Mo’s design in the face of a society that stereotypes the architect as a terrorist and an extremist inspire me, and throughout the reading, she has become my favorite character. Even with the constant pressure from the media and other outsiders to withdraw her support for “the Muslim,” as society labels him, Claire refuses to change her original stance (94). With society’s view of Mo as simply “the Muslim,” Waldman implies the architect’s separation from the public, indirectly characterizing him as an outcast. Despite this depiction of the man whose design she supports, Claire continues to defend the loner. Conniving journalist Alyssa Spier thereafter claims Claire “‘is sleeping with the enemy,’” using the negative connotation of “‘enemy’” within a common cliché to create an accusatory tone toward Claire. She attempts to convince Claire that she has taken the wrong stance on the memorial issue. With this allegation, Claire finds herself internally conflicted, not understanding the “fear…keeping her from owning her beliefs” (122). Here, Waldman’s indirect characterization of Claire as apprehensive due to the media’s finger-pointing makes the protagonist even more real and relatable. I greatly identify with Claire’s efforts to remain strong in what she truly stands for and I found it rewarding to watch Claire pull through yet again. After numerous hurtful assertions regarding her character, Claire still confesses to chairman Paul Rubin that she “‘wants the Garden as much as ever’” (190). With this statement, Waldman indirectly characterizes Claire as determined and willing to do whatever it takes to build Mo’s memorial. I wish I could say that I saw more of myself in Claire, whose adamancy inspires me. I do not see myself as one who can resist conformity. However, Waldman has shown me and hopefully other conformers to stand behind what they believe in. She reminds them to do the right thing, even if they must do it alone. I too, encourage those who have conformed to a society that goes against their personal beliefs to have the audacity to defend their own opinions.

What's in a name?

What’s in a name? Amy Waldman tries to answer this question in the opening chapters of her bestselling fiction novel, The Submission. The former New York Times reporter develops a storyline that highlights the prejudice toward American Muslims after the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. Architect Mohammad Kahn enters an anonymous design contest for a 9/11 memorial, and the book details the jury’s selection of his design and the revealing of his identity as a Muslim. The controversy that ensues becomes the central conflict of the book: the jury's decision to go through with building a “Muslim’s memorial” or not (99). I defend the architect’s design and his right to go through with the memorial and I frown on those who respond with cruel remarks and intolerance. Angry Americans respond to the idea of a Muslim building a memorial for their lost loved ones with pure repugnance. For example, upon learning Mohammad’s identity, one jury member immediately declares Kahn “‘unsuitable by definition,’” portraying his prejudice toward Muslims by directly characterizing them as “‘unsuitable’” (22). Sean Gallagher, founder of the Memorial Support Committee, responds by saying “‘it’s like being stabbed in the heart’” (92). Here, Waldman uses a graphic metaphor to imply Sean’s distaste for all Muslims, indirectly characterizing him as discriminatory. Mrs. Gallagher agreed with her son’s opinions, expressing that “‘we don’t want a Muslim’s memorial,’” using the collective pronoun of “‘we’” to imply that all Americans remain outraged by the idea of a Muslim building the memorial (99). Personally, their obvious prejudice infuriates me. It appears obvious that after the attack, she and many other Americans grouped all Muslims into the same category: ““the problematic ones’” (19). I do not believe this fair for Kahn or any other American Muslims who feel they have become “‘lesser Americans’” (89) due to the actions of an entirely separate group of Muslims. To me, they remain just as American as the rest of the country’s citizens. Kahn did not do anything wrong. As a result, I think the jury should go through with building the monument, despite all of the controversy it may cause. I believe that the Constitutional values of equality apply themselves here significantly, and I find it un-American to deny someone like Kahn the right to implement his design simply because he happens to have an Islamic background. Waldman invites those who are prejudice toward American Muslims to wake up and realize their insensitivity. I also urge Americans who may view American Muslims as violent people to re-evaluate their opinions and to refrain from judging people by their name or by their religion. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. If we Americans see Muslims the way al-Qaeda saw us, we will all become blind.