What happened to just crazy?
In the aftermath of 4/16, the absurdities that erupted in the media have been gut-wrenching, and barf worthy. I’m sorry – that’s just how I feel.
Just yesterday I emailed Aly venting about something I had read. It was an article about the Hokies first day back at school, and it was - for the most part – a good article. It was good up until the sentence, in the context of several South Korean students at a memorial, “Several times, he and the other students said they were sorry.” I think that was the last straw.
I want to know why random South Korean students should feel in any way obliged to apologize for someone that they didn’t even know. Why are minority ethnic groups marginalized and pressured (subconsciously) into believing that they have some obligation to apologize for a mad man? I didn’t see any white-Americans apologizing for Timothy McVeigh’s actions after Oklahoma city, or after Columbine. Why does an entire ethnic group have to bear the stigma of one crazy kid, wielding weapons that the government allowed him to have – unlawfully? (Unlawfully because his mental history actually barred him from being able to obtain arms, but the state and federal governments didn’t think it was important enough to connect the dots).
I had lunch w/the ILF crew and someone mentioned that Fox news went to some length to create a “Paki” connection. I believe it. That person went on to share a very enlightening, but not all that surprising story. She bumped into a well known journalist (admittedly, one that I had not heard of ... sigh,*shame*), and had the opportunity to chat with her. This woman was very candid, and asked my friend – so, you’re Muslim? How relieved were you when the shooter at Tech was not Muslim? You know, if he had been Muslim – you’d be all rounded up by now.
Is this an absurd thought? Is it absurd to consider that if the shooter was Muslim, that we wouldn’t be rounded up like the Japanese in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor? It’s an incredibly scary prospect. The scariest part is that she was right – it would have been the last straw if the Tech shooter was Muslim.
I digress, but back to the purpose of this post – in the past I’ve said that as members of certain communities, we have an obligation to be a spokesperson. I maintain that position, but am a little unclear myself as to what that applies to – is that responsibility limited to the context of groups on the basis of belief, or does it extend to ethnicity/race? I think it definitely applies to faith groups – not that we should be apologizing for extremists, but in a more limited way – as spokespersons for the crux of our beliefs, and as educators - clarifying and correcting. In the context of ethnicity, however, do we have that same role? Ethnicity/race is an immutable characteristic, and while in many respects culture does create a framework within which we share commonalities – I don’t think that holds true in this situation. Anyhoo, irrespective of my self-imposed distinction, I think there is something bubbling under the surface – it’s not pure racism, but more on the lines of Edward Said’s theory of the other. The other is defined by its weakest link. The other community is obliged to represent itself, irrespective of whether it actually has a common understanding or not.
The truth gets lost in the smoke: The Tech shooter didn’t go off on his rampage because he was Korean, he was mentally ill - it had nothing to do with race!
In this post 9/11 world, I wonder – what happened to just crazy?
Just yesterday I emailed Aly venting about something I had read. It was an article about the Hokies first day back at school, and it was - for the most part – a good article. It was good up until the sentence, in the context of several South Korean students at a memorial, “Several times, he and the other students said they were sorry.” I think that was the last straw.
I want to know why random South Korean students should feel in any way obliged to apologize for someone that they didn’t even know. Why are minority ethnic groups marginalized and pressured (subconsciously) into believing that they have some obligation to apologize for a mad man? I didn’t see any white-Americans apologizing for Timothy McVeigh’s actions after Oklahoma city, or after Columbine. Why does an entire ethnic group have to bear the stigma of one crazy kid, wielding weapons that the government allowed him to have – unlawfully? (Unlawfully because his mental history actually barred him from being able to obtain arms, but the state and federal governments didn’t think it was important enough to connect the dots).
I had lunch w/the ILF crew and someone mentioned that Fox news went to some length to create a “Paki” connection. I believe it. That person went on to share a very enlightening, but not all that surprising story. She bumped into a well known journalist (admittedly, one that I had not heard of ... sigh,*shame*), and had the opportunity to chat with her. This woman was very candid, and asked my friend – so, you’re Muslim? How relieved were you when the shooter at Tech was not Muslim? You know, if he had been Muslim – you’d be all rounded up by now.
Is this an absurd thought? Is it absurd to consider that if the shooter was Muslim, that we wouldn’t be rounded up like the Japanese in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor? It’s an incredibly scary prospect. The scariest part is that she was right – it would have been the last straw if the Tech shooter was Muslim.
I digress, but back to the purpose of this post – in the past I’ve said that as members of certain communities, we have an obligation to be a spokesperson. I maintain that position, but am a little unclear myself as to what that applies to – is that responsibility limited to the context of groups on the basis of belief, or does it extend to ethnicity/race? I think it definitely applies to faith groups – not that we should be apologizing for extremists, but in a more limited way – as spokespersons for the crux of our beliefs, and as educators - clarifying and correcting. In the context of ethnicity, however, do we have that same role? Ethnicity/race is an immutable characteristic, and while in many respects culture does create a framework within which we share commonalities – I don’t think that holds true in this situation. Anyhoo, irrespective of my self-imposed distinction, I think there is something bubbling under the surface – it’s not pure racism, but more on the lines of Edward Said’s theory of the other. The other is defined by its weakest link. The other community is obliged to represent itself, irrespective of whether it actually has a common understanding or not.
The truth gets lost in the smoke: The Tech shooter didn’t go off on his rampage because he was Korean, he was mentally ill - it had nothing to do with race!
In this post 9/11 world, I wonder – what happened to just crazy?
posted by zai5h at Wednesday, April 25, 2007
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home