I have been following the VTech shooting extensively since Day 1. I kept my browser on CNN and the Drudge Report so I'd have the latest news. I saw the manifesto that Cho Seung-Hui sent to NBC news - saw the pictures and watched the clips. I've been following this for a long time, and I think I'm ready to share my thoughts on the matter.
Before I say anything, though, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and friends of the victims. And of the shooter. My prayers are with you.
I would also like to make clear that I am doing this because I believe that, while the tragedy itself must be carefully examined, the reactions to it should be examined as well. It's easy to be careless when emotions are running high. Furthermore, I am not an American. I was born and raised in Manila, and I came here specifically for law school more or less two years ago. This is the perspective of someone who is not from here.
Disclaimers and clarifications aside, there are three things I'd like to comment on: 1) the 'racist' portrayal of the media, 2) the disturbing plays that Cho wrote that supposedly foreshadowed his violent crime, and 3) the airing of the manifesto.
1. The 'Racist' Portrayal of the Media
I have heard and read different versions of this concern. Margaret Cho has released a statement that expresses this well:
So here is the whole terrible mess of the shootings at Virginia Tech. I look at the shooter's expressionless face on the news and he looks so familiar, like he could be in my family. Just another one of us. But how can he be us when what he has done is so terrible? Here is where I can really envy white people because when white people do something that is inexplicably awful, so brutally and horribly wrong, nobody says – “do you think it is because he is white?” There are no headlines calling him the “White shooter." There is no mention of race because there is no thought in anyone's mind that his race had anything to do with his crime.
So much attention is focused on the Asian-ness of the shooter, how the Korean community is reacting to it, South Korea's careful condolences and cautiously expressed fear that it will somehow impact the South Korean population at large.
The full statement can be found here.
The statement is eloquent and heartfelt. There is no doubting the sincerity in her words. But there is a huge logical jump, I feel, between Cho being labelled the Korean shooter, and the supposed implication that race had something to do with his crime. When headlines in Manila say "American Peace Corps Volunteer Killed," I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the race of the victim had anything to do with the victimization. Well, bad example, because terrorists have been known to target foreigners, just to get more attention.
Okay, how about this - if USA Today says Swiss Man Sentenced for Defacing Images of Thai King , I don't think anyone would think that since the nationality of the Swiss was mentioned in the headlines, then the media is implying that the Swiss are more likely to deface Thai Kings.
Ah, but you might say that this is different, because we're talking about local media reporting on a local incident and labelling someone who is practically an American (by virtue of him growing up here) a Korean instead. For one thing, the labelling might not be totally unjustified, as Cho did retain his Korean citizenship. For another, and more importantly, if the concern is that minorities aren't considered American, regardless of their life experiences being very American, then I think it's a valid concern, and I'll completely back off if that's what the concern is. But, if Margaret Cho's piece is at all representative, I really don't think most people are following this line of thought.
Next, there's the concern about how "[s]o much attention is focused on the Asian-ness of the shooter, how the Korean community is reacting to it, South Korea's careful condolences and cautiously expressed fear that it will somehow impact the South Korean population at large." Well, is this attention unfounded? If the Korean community has very strong reactions to this event (i.e. parents pulling their children out of school, the Asians on campus feeling as though they had to stick together to avoid retaliatory actions), then why fault the media for featuring this? And more importantly, if the South Korean government gave an official statement expressing their concern about the South Korean population, then why fault the media for putting this out there? I'm no diplomat, but I think it'd be a serious insult not to say anything about it.
My take on this is simple. You can't have it both ways. If you identify yourself as a distinct group with your own culture, and you and your own treat yourself as such, then don't fault others if they take the cue from you and do the same.
2. Disturbing Plays Lead to Disturbing Crime
While I did seem to be defending the media in the previous section, there is one aspect of the coverage that has me fuming - the whole bit about how "Cho wrote disturbing plays and therefore was more likely to kill." What in the world? Oh, I'm not saying that there isn't a correlation between what a person writes and what is going on in that person's head. After all, how do you write what is not in your head?
But what I will say is this: it is entirely erroneous to assume that a person who writes violent plays (or other art forms) will then go on to commit violent crimes. This is precisely what the media is highlighting, no doubt about that. That's why this classmate of his posted those plays online, and said that he and his other classmates had suspicions that Cho was a school shooter. That's why this teacher of his is going on and on and on about how, when she heard about the killing, she would have been surprised if it hadn't been Cho.
Come on, people. So now, we should probably arrest Anthony Burgess (at least when we got the chance, because he's not here anymore) and Quentin Tarantino. The blood! The gore! The capacity to kill! What's the difference between Cho and these three people? Ah, the lack of talent, maybe. So yeah, lack of talent now makes one more likely to kill. Good think Anthony can write. Or good thing that the critics think that Anthony can write, and think that A Clockwork Orange is a masterpiece.
If you think that this is a harmless assumption that won't lead to harm, then think again. Look at the case of Allan Lee, a straight A high school student who was arrested and charged for "disorderly conduct" for, get this, submitting an essay in an English class that the teacher thought was "violently disturbing." Granted, the police said that "disorderly conduct" can apply when "someone's writing disturbs an individual." But this was a creative writing class. A class to get creative. A class to turn a paper in and get a grade. Not a class to turn a paper in and get arrested for disorderly conduct! How was this disorderly conduct?! It was in the context of a class. Oh, did Allan do the chicken dance while turning this in? Yeah, that probably explains it. Cause the news article certainly doesn't.
Bottomline is that the writings of Cho are relevant because he committed the violent massacre. That's the only reason they are relevant. Without the Cho-factor and without the massacre, a violent piece of writing is just that - a violent piece of writing. It is not an arrest warrant.
3. The Airing of Cho's Manifesto
Ah, here is a topic I can talk about without venom. While I agree that there is a public interest in being informed to the greatest extent possible about an issue of interest and concern (i.e. the VTech shooting), I also think that there's an even greater public interest in preventing copycat crimes and the glorification of an outcast figure that not just a few people can relate to.
From the reports coming in, I get the impression that Cho was a very awkward person who kept to himself. He was thought of as weird, shunned as an outcast, and made fun of. Aren't there always people like that in any school system? Wouldn't you think they'd be eager for a chance at revenge, for an opportunity to have the last laugh when everyone else is picking on them? I'd answer all my questions with a yes.
I watched the videos and saw the manifesto. I wanted to see it, to try to understand why this guy was raging at an invisble or entirely imagined enemy. Well, I saw the manifesto, and got very disturbed. Honestly, I was terrified - terrified that a human being like me could be capable of so much rage and anger, that he could be so cold and calculating as to treat lives as objects and just shoot them down, one by one. And after seeing the manifesto, I came away with a strong resolve that I would never be like him, never come close to being like him. I have pledged my life to the Lord, and to Him is the glory in all that I do.
I would never want to be like Cho, but I bet that are misguided kids out there who now wish to be just like him.
No comments:
Post a Comment