(no subject)
Two days later, and I'm still pretty shaken up by the VTech shooting.
My heart goes out to all the friends and families of the victims. And of the shooter. What his parents must be going through right now.
Also, I've been noticing that people have been really...careful around me these last two days. People give me a wide berth when I'm walking around campus. My roommate and I got slightly panicked stares in the caf when we discussed the recent events in Chinese. Although it may just be me--I know I've been really antsy too.
We had an open discussion in class today. It was good listening to everyone put forward their opinions on the aftermath of the event. We discussed everything from a university-wide emergency plan to discrimination on campus. In fact, one of the questions brought up was, "Do you think differently of Asian Americans because of this incident?"
The answer was a resounding "NO" from the entire auditorium. Thank you, Professor Obst and EC202. You have no idea how much I appreciate that.
On another note, I was surprised at the number of people participating and supporting Day of Silence today. Kudos to everyone--I think it really got the word out, so to speak.
ETA: Someone just sent me this through email.
What May Come: Asian Americans and the Virginia Tech Shootings
written by Tamara K. Nopper
April 17, 2007
Like many, I was glued to the television news yesterday, keeping updated
about the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech University. I was trying to
deal with my own disgust and sadness, especially since my professional life
as a graduate student and college instructor is tied to universities. And
then the other shoe dropped. I found out from a friend that the news channel
she was watching had reported the shooter as Asian. It has now been
reported, after much confusion, that the shooter is Cho Seung-Hui, a South
Korean immigrant and Virginia Tech student.
As an Asian American woman, I am keenly aware that Asians are about to
become a popular media topic if not the victims of physical backlash. Rarely
have we gotten as much attention in the past ten years, except, perhaps,
during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. Since then Asians are seldom seen in the
media except when one of us wins a golfing match, Woody Allen has sex, or
Angelina Jolie adopts a kid.
I am not looking forward to the onslaught of media attention. If history
truly does have clues about what will come, there may be several different
ways we as Asian Americans will be talked about.
One, we will watch white media pundits and perhaps even sociologists explain
what they understand as an "Asian" way of being. They will talk about how
Asian males presumably have fragile "egos" and therefore are culturally
prone to engage in kamikaze style violence. These statements will be
embedded with racist tropes about Japanese military fighters during WWII or
the Viet Cong-the crazy, calculating, and hidden Asian man who will fight to
the death over presumably nothing.
In the process, the white media might actually ask Asian Americans our
perspectives for a change. We will probably be expected to apologize in some
way for the behavior of another Asian-something whites never have to
collectively do when one of theirs engages in (mass) violence, which is
often. And then some of us might succumb to the Orientalist logic of the
media by eagerly promoting Asian Americans as real Americans and therefore
unlike Asians overseas who presumably engage in culturally reprehensible
behavior. In other words, if we get to talk at all, Asian Americans will be
expected to interpret, explain, and distance themselves from other Asians
just to get airtime.
Or perhaps the media will take the color-blind approach instead of a
strictly eugenic one. The media might try to whitewash the situation and
treat Cho as just another alienated middle-class suburban kid. In some ways
this is already happening-hence the constant referrals to the proximity of
the shootings to the 8th anniversary of the Columbine killings. The media
will repeat over and over words from a letter that Cho left behind speaking
of "rich kids," and "deceitful charlatans." They will ask what's going on in
middle-class communities that encourage this type of violence. In the
process they may never talk about the dirty little secret about middle-class
assimilation: for non-whites, it does not always prevent racial alienation,
rage, or depression. This may be surprising given that we are bombarded with
constant images suggesting that racial harmony will exist once we are all
middle-class. But for many of us who have achieved middle-class life, even
if we may not openly admit it, alienation does not stop if you are not
white.
But the white media, being as tricky as it is, may probably talk about Cho
in ways that reflect a combination of both traditional eugenic and
colorblind approaches. They will emphasize Cho's ethnicity and economic
background by wondering what would set off a hard-working, quiet, South
Korean immigrant from a middle-class dry-cleaner- owning family. They will
wonder why Cho would commit such acts of violence, which we expect from
Middle Easterners and Muslims and those crazy Asians from overseas, but not
from hard-working South Korean immigrants. They will promote Cho as "the
model minority" who suddenly, for no reason, went crazy. Whereas eugenic
approaches depicting Asians as crazy kamikazes or Viet Cong mercenaries
emphasize Asian violence, the eugenic aspect of the model minority myth
suggests that there is something about Asian Americans that makes them less
prone to expressions of anger, rage, violence, or criminality. Indeed, we
are not even seen as having
legitimate reasons to have anger, let alone rage, hence the need to figure
out what made this "quiet" student "snap."
Given that the model minority myth is a white racist invention that elevates
Asians over minority groups, Cho will be dissected as an anomaly among South
Koreans who "are not prone" to violence-unlike Blacks who are racistly
viewed as inherently violent or South Asians, Middle Easterners and Muslims
who are viewed as potential terrorists. He will be talked about as acting
"out of character" from the other "good South Koreans" who come here and
quietly and dutifully work towards the American dream. Operating behind the
scenes of course is a diplomatic relationship between the US and South Korea
forged through bombs and military zones during the Korean War and expressed
through the new free trade agreement negotiations between the countries.
Indeed, even as South Korean diplomats express concern about racial backlash
against Asians, they are quick to disown Cho in order to maintain the image
of the respectable South Korean.
Whatever happens, Cho will become whoever the white media wants him to be
and for whatever political platform it and legislators want to push. In the
process, Asian Americans will, like other non-whites, be picked apart,
dissected, and theorized by whites. As such, this is no different than any
other day for Asian Americans. Only this time an Asian face will be on every
television screen, internet search engine, and newspaper.
Tamara K. Nopper is an educator, writer, and activist living in
Philadelphia. She can be reached at tnopper@yahoo. com.
I'm holding off on personal opinions until I hear what you guys think. Anyone?
ETA 2:
I have an entire diatribe on the subject, but I think I can sum it up to 3 points:
1. What was on the NBC producers' minds when they put this on the air? I can understand the people's right to having information, and I can understand presenting all sides of the argument so that the people can form a balanced argument, but
a. they pulled a segment of interviews with the families of the victims so that they could air this.
b. David Williams noted that they were going to "prevent further heroes and martyrs" (his words, not mine) by combing through the information first before releasing it.
c. all the news channels have been airing nothing else.
2. All of the news media have been drooling all over the words "Ishmail Ax" Cho scribbled on his arm in red ink. Before the release of the Manifesto, the news media barely gave it a glance. After the package went out, it was suddenly universal knowledge that Cho's massacre was a martyr's suicide with all sorts of Islamic overtones.
I'm sorry, but someone has not been reading their Bible. Ishmael, as Abraham's son, is present in all three major monotheistic religions. He may be angst personified, but he is not an Islamic phenomenon.
Also, there is no reason Cho had to have been religious (actually his videos make it pretty clear he believes in no god). Ishmael is the protagonist of a Daniel Quinn book by the same name. He is also the protagonist of Moby-Dick. Or Cho could simply have pulled the name out of a dictionary: Ishmael is synonymous with pariahs and outcasts.
He could simply be the "righteous hand" of the weak and outcast, as he himself stated in his videos.
3. WHERE ARE THE VICTIMS? We have heavy news coverage of Cho, constant reminders of Columbine, police and administrators scrambling over each other to lay blame on someone else, but what about what the victims and family have to say? I feel like they are being ignored by the media, and I'm sure they have opinions and stories they'd like to share. I didn't even know about Cho's parents (hope they're doing fine) until talking to my friends. I didn't know about the victims' stories until I went online and trawled through blogs and Facebook. I did find a few stories on msnbc.com, and they are put together well, in my opinion, but they aired at 8 in the morning. Why did Cho's words air during prime time?
Anyway, I think that's most of my rant. I may change my opinion as I find more info (as obviously I'm still searching), but I am ticked off right now.
My heart goes out to all the friends and families of the victims. And of the shooter. What his parents must be going through right now.
Also, I've been noticing that people have been really...careful around me these last two days. People give me a wide berth when I'm walking around campus. My roommate and I got slightly panicked stares in the caf when we discussed the recent events in Chinese. Although it may just be me--I know I've been really antsy too.
We had an open discussion in class today. It was good listening to everyone put forward their opinions on the aftermath of the event. We discussed everything from a university-wide emergency plan to discrimination on campus. In fact, one of the questions brought up was, "Do you think differently of Asian Americans because of this incident?"
The answer was a resounding "NO" from the entire auditorium. Thank you, Professor Obst and EC202. You have no idea how much I appreciate that.
On another note, I was surprised at the number of people participating and supporting Day of Silence today. Kudos to everyone--I think it really got the word out, so to speak.
ETA: Someone just sent me this through email.
What May Come: Asian Americans and the Virginia Tech Shootings
written by Tamara K. Nopper
April 17, 2007
Like many, I was glued to the television news yesterday, keeping updated
about the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech University. I was trying to
deal with my own disgust and sadness, especially since my professional life
as a graduate student and college instructor is tied to universities. And
then the other shoe dropped. I found out from a friend that the news channel
she was watching had reported the shooter as Asian. It has now been
reported, after much confusion, that the shooter is Cho Seung-Hui, a South
Korean immigrant and Virginia Tech student.
As an Asian American woman, I am keenly aware that Asians are about to
become a popular media topic if not the victims of physical backlash. Rarely
have we gotten as much attention in the past ten years, except, perhaps,
during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. Since then Asians are seldom seen in the
media except when one of us wins a golfing match, Woody Allen has sex, or
Angelina Jolie adopts a kid.
I am not looking forward to the onslaught of media attention. If history
truly does have clues about what will come, there may be several different
ways we as Asian Americans will be talked about.
One, we will watch white media pundits and perhaps even sociologists explain
what they understand as an "Asian" way of being. They will talk about how
Asian males presumably have fragile "egos" and therefore are culturally
prone to engage in kamikaze style violence. These statements will be
embedded with racist tropes about Japanese military fighters during WWII or
the Viet Cong-the crazy, calculating, and hidden Asian man who will fight to
the death over presumably nothing.
In the process, the white media might actually ask Asian Americans our
perspectives for a change. We will probably be expected to apologize in some
way for the behavior of another Asian-something whites never have to
collectively do when one of theirs engages in (mass) violence, which is
often. And then some of us might succumb to the Orientalist logic of the
media by eagerly promoting Asian Americans as real Americans and therefore
unlike Asians overseas who presumably engage in culturally reprehensible
behavior. In other words, if we get to talk at all, Asian Americans will be
expected to interpret, explain, and distance themselves from other Asians
just to get airtime.
Or perhaps the media will take the color-blind approach instead of a
strictly eugenic one. The media might try to whitewash the situation and
treat Cho as just another alienated middle-class suburban kid. In some ways
this is already happening-hence the constant referrals to the proximity of
the shootings to the 8th anniversary of the Columbine killings. The media
will repeat over and over words from a letter that Cho left behind speaking
of "rich kids," and "deceitful charlatans." They will ask what's going on in
middle-class communities that encourage this type of violence. In the
process they may never talk about the dirty little secret about middle-class
assimilation: for non-whites, it does not always prevent racial alienation,
rage, or depression. This may be surprising given that we are bombarded with
constant images suggesting that racial harmony will exist once we are all
middle-class. But for many of us who have achieved middle-class life, even
if we may not openly admit it, alienation does not stop if you are not
white.
But the white media, being as tricky as it is, may probably talk about Cho
in ways that reflect a combination of both traditional eugenic and
colorblind approaches. They will emphasize Cho's ethnicity and economic
background by wondering what would set off a hard-working, quiet, South
Korean immigrant from a middle-class dry-cleaner- owning family. They will
wonder why Cho would commit such acts of violence, which we expect from
Middle Easterners and Muslims and those crazy Asians from overseas, but not
from hard-working South Korean immigrants. They will promote Cho as "the
model minority" who suddenly, for no reason, went crazy. Whereas eugenic
approaches depicting Asians as crazy kamikazes or Viet Cong mercenaries
emphasize Asian violence, the eugenic aspect of the model minority myth
suggests that there is something about Asian Americans that makes them less
prone to expressions of anger, rage, violence, or criminality. Indeed, we
are not even seen as having
legitimate reasons to have anger, let alone rage, hence the need to figure
out what made this "quiet" student "snap."
Given that the model minority myth is a white racist invention that elevates
Asians over minority groups, Cho will be dissected as an anomaly among South
Koreans who "are not prone" to violence-unlike Blacks who are racistly
viewed as inherently violent or South Asians, Middle Easterners and Muslims
who are viewed as potential terrorists. He will be talked about as acting
"out of character" from the other "good South Koreans" who come here and
quietly and dutifully work towards the American dream. Operating behind the
scenes of course is a diplomatic relationship between the US and South Korea
forged through bombs and military zones during the Korean War and expressed
through the new free trade agreement negotiations between the countries.
Indeed, even as South Korean diplomats express concern about racial backlash
against Asians, they are quick to disown Cho in order to maintain the image
of the respectable South Korean.
Whatever happens, Cho will become whoever the white media wants him to be
and for whatever political platform it and legislators want to push. In the
process, Asian Americans will, like other non-whites, be picked apart,
dissected, and theorized by whites. As such, this is no different than any
other day for Asian Americans. Only this time an Asian face will be on every
television screen, internet search engine, and newspaper.
Tamara K. Nopper is an educator, writer, and activist living in
Philadelphia. She can be reached at tnopper@yahoo. com.
I'm holding off on personal opinions until I hear what you guys think. Anyone?
ETA 2:
I have an entire diatribe on the subject, but I think I can sum it up to 3 points:
1. What was on the NBC producers' minds when they put this on the air? I can understand the people's right to having information, and I can understand presenting all sides of the argument so that the people can form a balanced argument, but
a. they pulled a segment of interviews with the families of the victims so that they could air this.
b. David Williams noted that they were going to "prevent further heroes and martyrs" (his words, not mine) by combing through the information first before releasing it.
c. all the news channels have been airing nothing else.
2. All of the news media have been drooling all over the words "Ishmail Ax" Cho scribbled on his arm in red ink. Before the release of the Manifesto, the news media barely gave it a glance. After the package went out, it was suddenly universal knowledge that Cho's massacre was a martyr's suicide with all sorts of Islamic overtones.
I'm sorry, but someone has not been reading their Bible. Ishmael, as Abraham's son, is present in all three major monotheistic religions. He may be angst personified, but he is not an Islamic phenomenon.
Also, there is no reason Cho had to have been religious (actually his videos make it pretty clear he believes in no god). Ishmael is the protagonist of a Daniel Quinn book by the same name. He is also the protagonist of Moby-Dick. Or Cho could simply have pulled the name out of a dictionary: Ishmael is synonymous with pariahs and outcasts.
He could simply be the "righteous hand" of the weak and outcast, as he himself stated in his videos.
3. WHERE ARE THE VICTIMS? We have heavy news coverage of Cho, constant reminders of Columbine, police and administrators scrambling over each other to lay blame on someone else, but what about what the victims and family have to say? I feel like they are being ignored by the media, and I'm sure they have opinions and stories they'd like to share. I didn't even know about Cho's parents (hope they're doing fine) until talking to my friends. I didn't know about the victims' stories until I went online and trawled through blogs and Facebook. I did find a few stories on msnbc.com, and they are put together well, in my opinion, but they aired at 8 in the morning. Why did Cho's words air during prime time?
Anyway, I think that's most of my rant. I may change my opinion as I find more info (as obviously I'm still searching), but I am ticked off right now.