Koreans React To VTech Shooting
Wow, learning that the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre was of Korean descent has really brought some reactions from the Korean government. Several members of the Korean government have already issued letters of condolences and Lee Tae Sik, the Korean amabassador to the US has even gone so far to suggest that all Korean Christians go on a 32 day fast to mourn the victims.
Yeah, that's all great and all, but I'm just curious as to why the Korean government is taking such a huge responsibility for this tragedy? It really has nothing to do with them. Cho Seung Hui, as far as I'm concerned, was an American. Sure, he was of Korean descent, but he was one paperwork step away from being a full blooded American citizen. He's been living in the US for 15 years already! For the Korean government to come out with such force and as a result bear some of the responsibility for his actions just emphasizes the fact that he was a Korean American when that shouldn't be a factor in this incident at all. Part of it is cultural, I believe. Koreans and maybe Asians in general have more a of a "we" mentality whereas Americans tend to focus more on the individual.
The Korean American Coalition and the Asian American Journalists Association have already had to deal with so many questions regarding Cho's race in the last two days. Is it really necessary? The AAJA has stressed that his race should not be used as an identifier because it had nothing to do with the crime. To state his race needlessly raises potential for racial backlash against Korean Americans and Asian Americans in general. Why is it necessary to mention his race? It certainly shouldn't have played any role in his motive, reasoning, etc. The man was just a disturbed individual. Not a disturbed Korean individual.
Watching the news yesterday, I just was kind of bothered by how the media kept talking about his race and that he was an alien resident. That is just silly. How about concentrating on more pressing issues such as mental health, campus security, and gun control? Don't you think that those issues bear more relevance in this case than the man's race?
Sorry...I'm just rambling on here. This incident has really disturbed me and I just keep thinking about what could've been done to prevent it and how we can move on from it with the least amount of trouble.
Yeah, that's all great and all, but I'm just curious as to why the Korean government is taking such a huge responsibility for this tragedy? It really has nothing to do with them. Cho Seung Hui, as far as I'm concerned, was an American. Sure, he was of Korean descent, but he was one paperwork step away from being a full blooded American citizen. He's been living in the US for 15 years already! For the Korean government to come out with such force and as a result bear some of the responsibility for his actions just emphasizes the fact that he was a Korean American when that shouldn't be a factor in this incident at all. Part of it is cultural, I believe. Koreans and maybe Asians in general have more a of a "we" mentality whereas Americans tend to focus more on the individual.
The Korean American Coalition and the Asian American Journalists Association have already had to deal with so many questions regarding Cho's race in the last two days. Is it really necessary? The AAJA has stressed that his race should not be used as an identifier because it had nothing to do with the crime. To state his race needlessly raises potential for racial backlash against Korean Americans and Asian Americans in general. Why is it necessary to mention his race? It certainly shouldn't have played any role in his motive, reasoning, etc. The man was just a disturbed individual. Not a disturbed Korean individual.
Watching the news yesterday, I just was kind of bothered by how the media kept talking about his race and that he was an alien resident. That is just silly. How about concentrating on more pressing issues such as mental health, campus security, and gun control? Don't you think that those issues bear more relevance in this case than the man's race?
Sorry...I'm just rambling on here. This incident has really disturbed me and I just keep thinking about what could've been done to prevent it and how we can move on from it with the least amount of trouble.
posted by Myong Choi at 8:34 AM
6 Comments:
Myong, I respect you for letting me react here (something tells me you appreciate the “other side” sometimes; not deliberate, just turns out that way) on your blog. So, I’d like to react here.
Firstly, I share that this incident has disturbed me, too. Still is.
OK, so, the Korean community in the U.S. found it necessary to hold a vigil as well. I saw that on CNN, too. Would that vigil have happened if there were no one of Korean descent involved in this tragic situation? Of course not. The Korean community felt the need to hold a vigil, yes for the murdered, but, best believe, because “the shooter” (as he has been called by the news agencies) is of, as you mention Myong, of Korean descent, they held the vigil with regard (maybe not “in honor,” I’ll say that much) to that fact. Any kind of ignorance of that is just plain spin.
You yourself said you hope this tragedy doesn’t create any lashback against the Korean community. You can’t have it both ways – hope that, and admoninish the media, or anyone else on the planet, neglect that Cho Seung Hui was of Korean ethnicity. Even if they weren’t asked any questions by their fellow media, do you think Asian American-based media outlets such as AAJA wouldn’t offer a take with their own news stories or especially editorials on this tragedy without pointing to Cho’s ethnicity. Of. Course. Not. You can’t have it both ways.
‘Nother thing that can’t go both ways: you say “he was one paperwork step away from being a full blooded American citizen. Ah, there’s the rub. He wasn’t a full American citizen as much as he didn’t finish his English degree. He couldn’t vote (he could buy guns though; but, I’m not opining on that here right now), so, there you go, he wasn’t a full American citizen. Living here for over a decade doesn’t automatically qualify – there are rules, ways and means. Terrorist sleeper cells can be living in this country for decades; does THAT make them U.S. citizens? Knowing all this, then, Cho’s still, at least partly, a S. Korean resident (proof: if said “paperwork” was somehow rejected, where would his citizenship then be based?), the S. Korean government must feel obligated to say something and, in my very personal opinion, they darn well should. I seen on TV and newspaper, non-Americans, including S. Korean folk, thumb their nose at the U.S. for our gun laws; well, guess what, I would tell ‘em. One of YOUR own partook of that gun law (at this writing, Cho bought those guns legally). Indeed, again, the S. Korean government should say something.
Cho’s actions on 04/16/2007 were evil. Period. It should not be spinned. Influenced, broken hearted, whatever, he reacted in an evil manner. Let’s return to the definition of what is evil already if we’re not already there years after 09/11. There are certain crimes where the common man at a distance is right in giving no quarter when viewing the the news reports on the committer of such tragedies. And, you know what? There’s no way around it and you can’t make people stop thinking it – when the news or history refers to this guy later on in life, the signs will automatically pop into people’s heads, even those who are born after this tragedy. They’re gonna think “[East] Asian,” “young person,” “something about him doesn’t look right.” I’m part East Asian (Jpn) and, like many East Asians in this case, you’re feeling the sting right now. No way around it. If I’m being honest so far, I’ll be honest to say this too – I’m feeling a sting right now every time this guy is mentioned on TV or the ‘paper, every time his face is emblazoned on the screen as well.
Indeed, this tragedy is creeping on me, as it should all of us. It makes me sad, it makes me mad as it is doing to many of us. So far away from that place, and it’s making me feel this way. Until 04/16/2007, I only knew VT as a football program with which to be reckoned. That apprehension that stuck in my chest on that day remains with me. And I’m not embarrassed by it.
This situation SHOULD stay and make folks think outside the box. There’s no flowchart, no gameplan, no owner’s manual for this kind of thing. You should talk about it to loved ones, clergy, talk to your doctor if needed.
Above all, I’m not – and I don’t anyone else should – tell how the classmates, the family, and the friends of the victims should think about this tragedy to their loved one(s). Politically correct or not, the direct classmates, friends, and family might, admittedly, do well to keep it private, but, no one should tell them how the heck to think about this situation.
Ever said “gone postal” since the similar tragedies by certain postal workers against their colleagues? Ever laugh at a joke that included the phrase? Every thought, hmmm, there sure are a lot of Caucasian males when it comes to serial killers. Guess what? Just like how everyone is seeing Cho as the name and face of the worst massacre in recent U.S. history (and, too bad, WILL see as such in the future) is the same way the aforementioned idiosyncrasies were similarly formed. That’s a way of allowing an idiosyncratic factor into the equation.
People want to know the accuser is because they demand to know, they think the news and the government has a right to tell them, and just out of plain curiosity. And in the end, they’ll wanna’ make their generalizations and connections regarding the accuser. That just makes the world do ‘round, so, if anybody thinks said accusers differences mean NOTHING in a tragedy like this? All I got to say it to anybody thinking this is: get the heck off legislating thought, especially in a tragic situation.
Thanks for the time.
WTF? uh ok.
the man...thanks for your 2 cents. Of course, I always welcome other's opinions.
As far as the Korean community holding vigils, if they are holding them just for the reason that the killer was a KA, then I don't really support their intent. Like you said, would they have held a vigil if the shooter wasn't KA? Probably not. But to be honest, KAC is actually discouraging any more vigils by Korean communities and urging cancellation of any such activities because it only brings race issue into the light further.
I don't understand when you say that you can't have it both ways regarding the media's concentration on his ethnicity (which has decreased dramatically today by the way) and the hope for no backlash against KAs and their communities. No one is asking the media to neglect the fact that Cho was a KA. But that fact shouldn't be anymore significant than his gender, age, height, etc. It's merely an identifier and not a cause for discussion. And when I say that I hope there is no backlash, I'm just hoping that people are smart enough to realize what I just said above, that his race had nothing to do with the crime. And so far, it looks pretty good as I haven't seen any stories of crimes against any AA communities. So far, that turned out to be a needless worry.
And Cho was much closer to being an American citizen than being a Korean one. Cho is in no way a S.Korean resident as you state. Yes, he still maintains Korean citizenship, but he is a "permanent legal resident" of the US. In your commentary, you state Cho as "one of (South Korea's) own". You also state that the South Korean should be obligated to make a statement. Why? I totally disagree. The South Korean government officials issuing all of these statements are only making things more difficult for the KA communities here by further pushing the issue of ethnicity. KAC has spent the last two days trying to undo the damage done by the Korean government officials. Did Cho do what he did in the name of S. Korea? Did he yell out "Daehanminguk!" while commiting the crime? Why should the Korean government have to apologize for anything? I really fail to see that perspective.
Did you demand that Japan issue a statement when Byron Uyesugi killed all those people at Xerox? Why not? He's a Japanese American. Oh, because his family and heritage has been in Hawaii for a long time and not a measley 15 years like Cho? But you said that time is not a factor in citizenship, as terrorists can be here for decades, as you state. So what's the difference between Uyesugi and Cho? A piece of paper? Please...give me a break. The S. Korean government has no responsibility for Cho and his actions.
In any case, the media has decidedlly cooled off on the race aspect as well as they should have, so this shouldn't be an issue anymore.
The package mailed puts the attention back to where it should have been focused on in the first place. Mental illness. Now the media will have something to talk about and more papers to sell instead of grasping at straws and focusing on ethnicity.
Did you get email and calls also saying 'please don't let him be Korean?' or 'if he's Korean can you imagine the comments like oh right you guys have bad tempers, Korean guys get the girl because they will keep chopping down the tree until it falls' etc.? I was speechless and angry.
Something so horrific just happened and you're focusing on what people will think of you because you're Korean? I'll gladly take the mean looks and racial slurs, I didn't do anything wrong so wtf?
Why is he referred to as Cho Seung Hui instead of Seung Hui Cho?
Japan won't even apologize for comfort women much less acknowledge it and their text books are censored, Dokdo is Dokdo, East Sea is not the Sea of Japan so of course they wouldn't apologize over Byron Uyesugi. None of the Japanese-American community expressed any shame. Maybe it's because they've been here longer and assimilated so well, they don't label themselves as anything but American.
Obligated, yes, methinks; forced to do so, of course not. They are obligated to so as much as they – and other nations - expect the U.S. to apologize whenever of ours commit some kind of crime in the host nation; do we never make a statement in response? We do, especially in the East Asian nations where this kind of formality is revered. Would they not wish to similarly respond when an individual still somehow (I’m willing to have it proved to me, but, there’s just no way around it: as much as a murderer who gets cut down on his way to court will always be innocent in the eyes of the law because s/he never got to be tried, so shall Cho cannot be considered a full citizen), attached to his/her country commits a crime overseas? And in a lot of situations (if not all), regarding U.S folks similarly commit crime overseas, the local court decides on the fate of the accused (not even U.S. money and influence can topple this – remember Michael Fay? Fay’s age, news coverage, and intervention from President Clinton [who helped to lessen the amount of caning strokes] couldn’t stop the punishment). I can’t say that the South Korean government and/or KAC (am I to understand a KAC-organized statement was not going to be made?) not saying something about the situation would’ve made U.S. citizens think “yeah, they don’t need to say anything” more than “eh, this guy was still a South Korean citizen? The Korean president going not say not’ing?”
Uyesugi, as far as I can gather is a (sad that a lot of us have to call him a fellow) U.S. citizen (maybe no longer privy to certain rights since, if I’m not mistaken, stuff like voting, is taken away if you’re convicted of a high crime). If he had citizenship in Japan (however close or far), heck, yes, the Japanese government should’ve mentioned something to Hawaii, U.S.A. But, that’s not the case, is it? He wasn’t born in the nation of Japan. He is not a citizen of Japan, he is a U.S. citizen now and at the time of his own crimes. As a sidenote, there’s a difference between Japanese nationals and those Japanese born and raised elsewhere (which Uyesugi apparently was) especially in Hawaii; doesn’t take too much research to see that Japanese nationals (born and raised in Japan, the government as well, etc.) will never consider their “born in other country” counterparts as full Japanese citizens (not that the latter should give a darn). Cho was born in S. Korea and came here at a young age. Unless I’m getting the rule wrong, I don’t mind being schooled about it, but, as you say, too, Cho still “maintains Korean citizenship.” Knowing that, wouldn’t the S. Korean government WANT to say something about or respond to this incident? What’s a popular question here in the islands? What’s your nationality? I say, “I’m a U.S. citizen.” My ethnicity is part European, part Jpn., but, I’m a U.S. citizen, yes, because that’s my legal status (not a mere piece of paper; I would hope being a citizen of a country would go beyond that). What was Cho’s? Of South Korean citizenship and a naturalized U.S. citizen? Well, there you go.
I, too, am greatly glad no rash of backlash has been experienced by Koreans or the Korean community. And I guess we agree on how the media is not expected to ignore Cho’s ethnicity. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, but, my point regarding the race thing is, you just can’t legislate the connections folks will make in their minds and among themselves when tragedies like this arise. Realistically and sadly, it’s just unavoidable because it is the right of U.S. citizenry to express themselves. You say, “But that fact shouldn't be anymore significant than his gender, age, height, etc. It's merely an identifier and not a cause for discussion.” Well, maybe the issue or race goes neck and neck with gender, but, I don’t know how convinced someone can be that race is a mere identifier in tragic cases as this one. It’s a sad fact. You think more people watching the events unfold said, “those 20 year olds!” or “damn men!” or “see? It’s ‘cause he’s under 6 feet!” more than they had comments about his ethnicity? It IS a topic for discussion that maybe we need to get over with someday; but, not forced to do so as freedom of expression is a U.S. citizen’s right. The discussion of race sports a shorter fuse to get to the meat of what folks tend to discuss rather than gender (a close second, methinks), age (next), and physical description. Folks sitting together in bars, restaurants, their own living rooms, they’re gonna think what they wanna think. And if we’re not fooling ourselves, we can imagine what a lot of thought and that talk like that might be. Sadly, imagine what a lot of thought and talk like that might be. To me, it’s less than before, but, will always exist.
You get the last word I won’t respond after this clarification; your blog, man, heh, again, I appreciate the time.
P.S., oh, just one slight thing, regarding your “Cho is in no way a S.Korean resident as you state.” Where did I say that?
There's a difference between the SK govt "wanting" to say something and being "obligated" to say something. You're saying they should be obligated. Why? Because Cho was born there? What difference does that make?
I'm afraid I just don't see the point of your statement. You are putting way too much weight on the difference between Cho's status as a permanent legal resident and being an American citizen.
What if Cho had gone the extra step and was a naturalized citizen? Would you still be saying that South Korea was obligated to make a statement? The only difference between he and you would be place of birth. Is that really important in this particular situation?
What is it exactly that you expect the Korean government to say anyway? "We're sorry that Cho was born in our country?" I just don't get it. The S.Korean govt has no obligation whatsoever to say anything regarding this crime.
Anyway, I am done with this discussion regarding race. With this discussion, even I'm falling guilty of making an issue of it when it's clearly not.
Post a Comment
<< Home