Nevermind. I read it myself, and I figured it out.
The piece is a racial commentary. It is an inversion of the racial roles seen in the real Virginia Tech massacre. The inversion is reflected in the West-East inversion, in which the West Coast is the oldest part of the country because it was colonized first, because the colonists came from China, not Europe.
The shooter is of European descent. He is the minority. This is a commentary on the real life media's fixation on the Virginia Tech shooter's ethnic and racial background, the media's attempts to derive some kind of half-cocked answer based on what they thought they knew of him based on his racial/ethnic identity alone.
If you look at the names, there is an "Antoinio Kim" mentioned early on. The author knows that he is obviously sidestepping the most obvious inversion, the European-Korean inversion, and substituting Chinese ethnicity in place of Korean ethnicity. This is probably so he can work in the bit about the history of gunpowder (and to avoid being TOO obvious).
The story's title is given meaning in the text itself in referring to the psychological condition of the "colonized mind." Here, a European male internalized and identified with the dominant race group, the "yellow" group. In this story, "yellow" is used in the same way "white" is used in the real world U.S. The role of colonist and colonized is reversed.
This piece satirizes the underlying racism in the media coverage and public opinion of the Virgina Tech shooter. There was a great deal of focus on the fact that he was a Korean American. This very short story criticizes that. All it's missing, I would say, is a segment featuring a public statement made by a British-American community hundreds of miles away expressing condolences.
But yeah, the whole is a pretty scathing commentary on race-relations and mass media.
I'm still not sure what to say about the substitution of China in place of Korea though. On one hand, it might be more "sensitive" to do it that way. It makes the situation more general, suggesting that these type of race relations are not restricted to white-American and Korean-American. On the other hand, why do a lot of Western writers always choose China or Japan over other countries in Asia when they write about Asia? Especially in this case when there seems more reason not to.
I guess, if I had done this, I would have made the original colonists Korean. I say that because Korea has a history of being in either China's or Japan's sphere of influence. Up against the Chinese empire, they were kind of the underdog, always fighting off invasions and other attempts to subjugate them. This puts their situation more parallel to the English colonists who landed on the East coast of North America, as those colonists were religious outcasts and political dissidents not in good standing with the ruling British monarch. It wouldn't be too hard to imagine an alternate history scenario where Korea was forcibly annexed by pre-modern China and a group of Korean dissidents were shipped across the Pacific for new territory to prevent them from leading an independence movement. That would also explain why they seceded and formed a new nation rather than stayed a colony of China.
I think part of the commentary of the story is to address current US fears of China, considering we're in debt to them and they seem to be poised to be the next major power.
I chose China because of the real history (the Ming Treasure Ships) that could be tweaked into an alternate timeline that would explain them colonizing North America. The English colonists of Plymouth were religious outcasts, but don't forget that there were way more other English colonization efforts than just that famous one, efforts that were far more reflective of mainstream British culture.
I did not choose China or avoid Korea for any reason having to do with the real shooter's ethnicity. The point, for me, was the clash of elements in the majority and the minority, not the exact natures of what the real-life majority and minority are. Kind of like how in Star Trek, ethnicities were always represented by different alien races, but the conflicts between them were clearly allegories for 1960s race relations in America.
I did totally intend all of the scathing commentary on race relations and the media. I think any murder is awful, but sensational ones always seem to get more coverage. And sadly I do think, like the last line says, there will inevitably be "More after this."
A story like this might have had more of an impact in a non-genre publication. The focus is very specific, and the interpretation relies heavily on context. Though genre does deal with sociological elements, it usually does so in a more generalized fashion.
You articulated that far better than I did! The only trouble I had with my interpretation was getting deluded into thinking it took place in China, not North America.
Did you read any of the other stories in the chapbook? You should. :)
The piece is a racial commentary. It is an inversion of the racial roles seen in the real Virginia Tech massacre. The inversion is reflected in the West-East inversion, in which the West Coast is the oldest part of the country because it was colonized first, because the colonists came from China, not Europe.
The shooter is of European descent. He is the minority. This is a commentary on the real life media's fixation on the Virginia Tech shooter's ethnic and racial background, the media's attempts to derive some kind of half-cocked answer based on what they thought they knew of him based on his racial/ethnic identity alone.
If you look at the names, there is an "Antoinio Kim" mentioned early on. The author knows that he is obviously sidestepping the most obvious inversion, the European-Korean inversion, and substituting Chinese ethnicity in place of Korean ethnicity. This is probably so he can work in the bit about the history of gunpowder (and to avoid being TOO obvious).
The story's title is given meaning in the text itself in referring to the psychological condition of the "colonized mind." Here, a European male internalized and identified with the dominant race group, the "yellow" group. In this story, "yellow" is used in the same way "white" is used in the real world U.S. The role of colonist and colonized is reversed.
This piece satirizes the underlying racism in the media coverage and public opinion of the Virgina Tech shooter. There was a great deal of focus on the fact that he was a Korean American. This very short story criticizes that. All it's missing, I would say, is a segment featuring a public statement made by a British-American community hundreds of miles away expressing condolences.
But yeah, the whole is a pretty scathing commentary on race-relations and mass media.
Reply
I guess, if I had done this, I would have made the original colonists Korean. I say that because Korea has a history of being in either China's or Japan's sphere of influence. Up against the Chinese empire, they were kind of the underdog, always fighting off invasions and other attempts to subjugate them. This puts their situation more parallel to the English colonists who landed on the East coast of North America, as those colonists were religious outcasts and political dissidents not in good standing with the ruling British monarch. It wouldn't be too hard to imagine an alternate history scenario where Korea was forcibly annexed by pre-modern China and a group of Korean dissidents were shipped across the Pacific for new territory to prevent them from leading an independence movement. That would also explain why they seceded and formed a new nation rather than stayed a colony of China.
Just a thought.
Reply
Reply
I did not choose China or avoid Korea for any reason having to do with the real shooter's ethnicity. The point, for me, was the clash of elements in the majority and the minority, not the exact natures of what the real-life majority and minority are. Kind of like how in Star Trek, ethnicities were always represented by different alien races, but the conflicts between them were clearly allegories for 1960s race relations in America.
I did totally intend all of the scathing commentary on race relations and the media. I think any murder is awful, but sensational ones always seem to get more coverage. And sadly I do think, like the last line says, there will inevitably be "More after this."
Scott H. Andrews
www.scotthandrews.com
Reply
Reply
Did you read any of the other stories in the chapbook? You should. :)
Reply
Leave a comment