aznrednek's Xanga Site
About this Entry
Posted by: aznrednek

Visit aznrednek's Xanga Site

Original: 4/27/2007 10:25 AM
Views: 28
Comments: 4
eProps: 6

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site


Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps!2 eProps! 2 eProps from:
organreview
slwurn
rebeccasun


Friday, April 27, 2007

Asian-Americans and the Virginia Tech shooting

 

I wrote a comment in response to a friend’s Xanga post, and thought I’d post my comment on my blog with a few edits.  She wrote…

But the discussion that immediately sprang up in the community of which I am a part disgusts me. I am talking about the Asian-American community’s obsession over the fear of retribution. The naked relief from the non-Korean entities that the killer did not come from their ranks; the desperate apologies and conciliatory gestures from the Korean community, having drawn the short straw. What inhumane self-centeredness!

My comment…

I think it’s an understandable reaction given the values of many asian cultures. Even Asian-Americans are heavily influenced by the shame-based cultures many of them grow up around. As far removed as some Asian-Americans think they are from their ancestral cultures, there is still often a sense that the public actions of an individual can represent an entire race– particularly when the media seizes upon ethnicity as a noteworthy detail. Think about families where the failings of one child are lamented by parents as “bringing shame upon the whole family.” How much worse, then, is the shame felt when major news outlets started to fill their sparse articles with his ethnicity and immigration to the States, his awkwardness of speech as recounted by classmates, etc. I think that the lack of information early-on about the shooter resulted in a hyperfocus on the ethnic and immigrant angle. When that aspect makes up 20-30% of a written article, it stands out as a noteworthy detail to the average reader.

I’m not condoning the knee-jerk press-releases about “please don’t blame all of us”. But I think it’s understandable given the cultural context of where these public statements are coming from. Shame is a powerful force for people of asian descent. Note the difference between guilt and shame. Guilt is where you’ve done something wrong. Shame is fear-driven– fear of potential condemnation. Shame constrains one to avoid certain acts or apologizes for things one is not responsible for (false guilt). True guilt comes if you’ve actually committed a wrong.

On a second note, with regards to the policy debates that will come, the time for them is never immediately after a major crisis. Legislation in reaction to a crisis is usually ill-conceived, impractical, and placebo in its effect. I’m a big believer in legislation that builds into itself expiration, requiring independent evaluation and assessment of effectiveness after the emotions have subsided. The passage of a law is not easily reversed if it should prove to be ineffective, or worse, counterproductive. This is the time to grieve, to remember the victims, to care for those affected because many of the affected will themselves become indirect victims of this tragedy if they do not receive long-term support and care.

Legislation would never have prevented this tragedy from happening. When a man commits to plan public harm of many innocent people, he has already determined to violate any law that stands in his way. Any law can be circumvented, any regulation can be bypassed, all internal moral barriers have been abandoned. Legislation and law are no shield against evil intent. And what legal punishment can you exert over someone who’s intention it is to take their own life?

I was recently with a friend who has a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend. He intentionally showed up when she was with her daughter, putting all of her friends on edge. Does he care about the restraining order? No. Can the police do anything? Not really. The safety of herself and her daughter is in her own hands, not in the hands of the police.

In the case of this recent tragedy, could it have been prevented? I don’t know. But no amount of law can deter hatred, no legislation can extinguish rage.  Virginia law already bans firearms on school property (SEE : Code of Virginia §18.2-308.1).  The law already existed– but Cho had no regard for it.

In an ideal world of science fiction fantasy, someone could have read Cho’s mind and locked him away once murderous intent was detected.  Minority Report presented a stylized and simplified exploration of many of the moral and ethical problems about this approach.  In today’s world, maybe if Cho had spoken to someone openly about this, they could have reported it. There are a thousand what-if’s.

The stark reality is that when someone commits to do evil and begins to carry it out, prevention has already failed.  They are not deterred by threat of punishment.  Once that happens, the only option is direct intervention to interrupt the crime, and the people who will have to make those split second decisions will be citizens like you and I. Everyday citizens must take responsibility for their own AND others safety. Years ago, when someone tried to carjack a family member, there were no police nearby and had they arrived they would have been too late. The only thing standing in the way was myself and I chose to intervene. When evil comes for you or a loved one, there may not be time to pick up the phone and wait for someone else to rescue you. It’s harsh, but that’s reality– you will face it, and you may face it alone.

The people who were around Cho in his early years bear responsibility too. I’m not saying that childhood persecution is the only precursor to violence– I experienced plenty of that growing up in the deep South– but children are easily wounded. Rage that grows unchecked in a child manifests in horrific ways when they are old enough to inflict pain on others. As a child, I defended many of my peers from taunts and persecution. Even then I remember fuming, “Why doesn’t anyone else DO SOMETHING about this?” I rarely saw anyone else standing with me. Is that still the case in our society, or has it gotten worse? Wound a child repeatedly when he is young, and he will do the same to others when he is older.

Like every other tragedy of this nature this will spawn many debates in this country. And like every other time, there will be no consensus. I, for one, have decided to allow this to remind me that I should extend mercy instead of retribution, compassion instead of apathy, love instead of hate. God has had mercy on a corrupt soul like me, I should then do the same for others. And for me it also reminds me that standing up to injustice and evil when it comes knocking is my own responsibility– not someone else’s.

 Posted 4/27/2007 10:25 AM - 28 Views - 6 eProps - 4 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

4 Comments

Visit organreview's Xanga Site!

I previously worked for the law enforcement community. Unless you can read people's minds there is very little we can do to prevent things from happening; not even Cho's closest relatives ever imagined he could do such a thing. The same thing also with the Amish tragedy, his wife said that he was not the man she had known. I'm a physicist, you rightly say the science fiction of "reading people's minds" is only a fantasy. That doesn't happen in the real world, and as progressive/liberal as I am being a scientist, I don't foresee that to happen within our lifetime.

Our society (America) has been known as a trusting society, there is a little suspicion on people's motives/intents toward others in everyday relationship as supposed to in any other societies around the world, where even if you dare to smile to a stranger on the street, people can call a police to arrest you. Now what... after all these... are we going to cast suspicion upon everyone in the mental care the same way we casted suspicion upon "certain people" after 9/11? Are we not losing our ability to see people as God's image and likeness rather than putting them into boxes of stereotypism based on their color of skins or appearance?

In the personal level, I'd like to quote a statement that I'm writing on my book,

"Very rarely, if ever, do I identify myself as a member of a certain ethnic group, or answer such question as "Where are you originally from?" as such issues bear no importance, and I would rather be known or remembered by my contribution to Christianity, humanity and human civilization."  -- B. Wibowo, "From Drs. to Ph.D"

Only Jesus can read people's minds, you and I can't.

By the way, I hope everyone is OK. We missed you at the Christmas Party in my house last year.

Posted 4/29/2007 8:51 PM by organreview - reply

Visit slwurn's Xanga Site!
well said Dan
Posted 5/2/2007 7:52 AM by slwurn - reply

Visit rebeccasun's Xanga Site!
Hi Dan, thanks for your comments in my blog, and for expanding your thoughts here. I think you are addressing two issues: the Asian(-American) community's reaction to the shootings (your response to my post), and the right to bear arms (about which I expected you'd have something to say!).

Regarding the former, I do understand why Asians responded the way they did. I understand that all these efforts are done not out of guilt but out of shame; my argument is that they shouldn't feel shame, they shouldn't be responding out of shame, that what is a shame is that these humanitarian-type acts like fundraising for a memorial are being done more out of fear than out of a sincere sense of empathy. I could be mistaken, but I don't remember the NAACP making any grand conciliatory gestures after the D.C. snipers were caught. Why? Because they didn't have to. There was no rational connection between these two depraved individuals and the general black community (not that such a thing exists; racial groups are too often artificially homogenized).

And maybe I really am too blind to see this, but the media's disturbing obsession with Cho's alien status is an idea I've really only read about in Asian blogs and websites. I really didn't see an undue emphasis on these facts; it seems to me that the objection was over mentioning them all. I'm sure that if Cho was born in Minnesota and had lived there his entire life, the presence of that information would have gone unquestioned. To say that 23-year-old Cho lived in the area since he was 8 and leave it at that is bad journalism because it is an incomplete record of the facts available. It is not media bias to state that he was born in South Korea. Rather, intentionally omitting information like place of birth from a biographical profile would be editorializing, because it would assume for the reader what is and isn't relevant to the story.

I feel like our preemptive paranoia is only fanning the flames and drawing more attention to Cho's foreign-ness. If Koreans want to stop people from associating Cho with their community, then they need to start ignoring him.

As for your second point, you already know you and I come from very different backgrounds when it comes to the issue of private citizens bearing arms. I do understand the frustration and the fear that many of the captive students last Monday felt when they were reduced to sitting ducks because, in the face of a law-flouting madman, they obeyed the law that said they could not bring their firearms to school. My roommate and I talked about this last week. My perspective is that we really have no idea of knowing how things would turn out differently had students been allowed their second amendment rights. Perhaps many more deaths could have been prevented, a la the examples you linked above. Perhaps there could have been some friendly-fire casualties in the chaos and the confusion.

I'm certainly not going to tout this incident as evidence that the United States needs stronger gun control legislation because making guns illegal will not stop a person whose intention is to use guns to kill people. I completely agree with you about the futility and the irrelevance of those types of efforts.

However, I do have a sincere question. You stress that civilians have a personal responsibility for their safety, and I can't disagree with that. We certainly ought to practice risk prevention, and to remain in a consistent state of awareness and vigilance. But how far does this responsibility/duty extend? Do you feel that it is irresponsible for a citizen not to exercise his or her right to bear arms?
Posted 5/3/2007 4:50 PM by rebeccasun - reply

Visit aznrednek's Xanga Site!
"You stress that civilians have a personal responsibility for their safety, and I can't disagree with that. We certainly ought to practice risk prevention, and to remain in a consistent state of awareness and vigilance. But how far does this responsibility/duty extend? Do you feel that it is irresponsible for a citizen not to exercise his or her right to bear arms?" (comment from rebeccasun)

No, I don't think it's irresponsible. In most metropolitan areas of the U.S.A. it's not culturally acceptable anymore to walk around like it's the Wild West. In general the public at large has an expectation of public safety. That's why in most states citizens are given the option to bear arms in public IF they are concealed from public view. So in most states qualified individuals have the option to exercise that right discreetly, and in a manner which does not alarm individuals who choose not exercise that right.

But most citizens are not aware that the police have no constitutional duty to protect any _individual_ citizen.

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
"...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen"

The details of the case are pretty horrific. The toned-down summary is that two roommates called police when they heard another roommate being attacked in their dwelling, police drove by but did not enter the dwelling and kept driving, the two roomates came out thinking the police had entered the dwelling and were assaulted by their roomate's assailant for the next fourteen hours. They later sued the Metropolitan police and lost.

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Mrs. Gonzales was murdered by her husband after he made death threats and had a restraining order taken out against him. The ruling was that Mrs. Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection.

There is a duty for law enforcement to provide protection if a "special relationship" exists between you and the police. I'm not a lawyer, so this is my laymans' understanding, but examples cited where a "special relationship" exists are incarcerated individuals and mental patients-- people involuntarily committed to institutions under government care. Most of us do not fall under those categories.

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

My point is that personal protection REALLY is an individual citizens' responsibility. I'm not just arguing an opinion, the Supreme Court has set this as a legal precedent. The expectation that law enforcement is obligated to protect you is false. They will pursue and prosecute the perpetrator after the fact, but it's rare that they are able to intervene, and intervention is not the reason why law enforcement exists. Law enforcement enforces the law, but is not able to halt all criminal acts from occurring.
Posted 5/3/2007 5:59 PM by aznrednek - reply


Choose Identity
(?)
 
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 


Back to aznrednek's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in aznrednek's local time zone:
GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)