Brenton
Truth about Cho Seung-hui
April 19th 2007 03:37
Why? That's the big question. Or rather, it should be.
The sad thing is, nobody really cares why. They're too busy using the situation to their political advantage, somehow constructing the massacre as evidence that gun control is unneeded (work that one out), or using it to reaffirm their own personal bias against popular culture such as computer games.
Cho Seung-hui was his name. We don't know his story.
We really couldn't care much less.
Ask the Courier Mail, with their "Good And Evil" Front page. Guess who's good? The white kid in the soldier outfit. Who's bad? The Korean with the nerdy glasses.
Cho Seung-hui. Daily Telegraph does it better. You can bet that turning him into a horror movie archtype on thei front page wasn't accidental.
We don't give a damn why he did it. That would mean thinking. That would mean questioning. That would mean suggesting something isn't right, that something about the culture, the gun laws, the attitudes, the lifestyles, the values that surrounded Cho Seung-hui weren't right. That would mean something was wrong. That would mean something needs to be fixed.
No. Too hard. Far too hard. So instead we turn it into some crappy horror movie. Cho Seung-hui is just another Jason. Just another Freddy. Patrick Bateman. He kills. Why?
Because he's evil.
He's just evil, and nothing could be done about it. Same reason terrorists attack. Same reason pedophiles attack. Same reason a mother kills her child. We don't need reasons. We don't need brains. We just need to know one thing - they're evil. Unlike us. We're good - they're evil. And let's just keep telling ourself that.
Cho Seung-hui. Why did he do it? Buggered if I know. Personal bias - just a mentally unstable individual, who couldn't be what people wanted him to be, felt too much hate and not enough love, and had access to weapons that made killing simple.
Cho Seung-hui did terrible things. But becasue he was evil? If you need an excuse, go for it. Drink that sucker down. But if you want to understand...
No. Of course you don't. How naive of me.
The sad thing is, nobody really cares why. They're too busy using the situation to their political advantage, somehow constructing the massacre as evidence that gun control is unneeded (work that one out), or using it to reaffirm their own personal bias against popular culture such as computer games.
Cho Seung-hui was his name. We don't know his story.
We really couldn't care much less.
Ask the Courier Mail, with their "Good And Evil" Front page. Guess who's good? The white kid in the soldier outfit. Who's bad? The Korean with the nerdy glasses.
Cho Seung-hui. Daily Telegraph does it better. You can bet that turning him into a horror movie archtype on thei front page wasn't accidental.
We don't give a damn why he did it. That would mean thinking. That would mean questioning. That would mean suggesting something isn't right, that something about the culture, the gun laws, the attitudes, the lifestyles, the values that surrounded Cho Seung-hui weren't right. That would mean something was wrong. That would mean something needs to be fixed.
No. Too hard. Far too hard. So instead we turn it into some crappy horror movie. Cho Seung-hui is just another Jason. Just another Freddy. Patrick Bateman. He kills. Why?
Because he's evil.
He's just evil, and nothing could be done about it. Same reason terrorists attack. Same reason pedophiles attack. Same reason a mother kills her child. We don't need reasons. We don't need brains. We just need to know one thing - they're evil. Unlike us. We're good - they're evil. And let's just keep telling ourself that.
Cho Seung-hui. Why did he do it? Buggered if I know. Personal bias - just a mentally unstable individual, who couldn't be what people wanted him to be, felt too much hate and not enough love, and had access to weapons that made killing simple.
Cho Seung-hui did terrible things. But becasue he was evil? If you need an excuse, go for it. Drink that sucker down. But if you want to understand...
No. Of course you don't. How naive of me.
| 66 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Activist Links: (Request one)
Vitamins are criminal?
Just say Know
Could Corporate Interests Destroy The Internet as we Know it?
Comment by Damo
I usually have misgivings about the way people look for someone to hang the label of the most evil person alive on every crime. No doubt about it this guy was off his nut and becomeing more so as time went on. Then again so many people are off their nut and harm no one. He leaves clues that are incoherent and people try to interpret what they mean. The truth may be only he knows the meaning of his words and his motivations as his grip on reality was warped. The balance of his his mind may have been disturbed by metal illness, stress, anger or alienation and so he took his frustrations out on the innocent victims around him.
It is a crime and that cannot be ignored but was he the only person guilty? He had the motive which could anything from personal demons to resentments. He had the opportunity as long as he lived on campus. Yet the Means to commit the crime were his easy access to handguns.
That is the reality and no double dutch logic can change that fact. But Rednecks don't need facts and they don't care if thousands die as long as they can nurse their gun and keep it loaded and ready. Gun manufacturers are running the debate in America and they make a killing out of killings.
Comment by bertyang
QUESTION MARK
In my mind there is no question why Cho Seung Hui went by "Question Mark." I was born in the US, given a Westernized first name of Albert at birth, but given the Chinese middle name of "Shing-yah." At a very young age I quickly learned that my middle-name would be source of taunt and torment by my non-Asian classmates, so I would always leave it blank on forms. If anyone asked me what my middle name was I responded, "S." Often this would be followed by, "What does 'S.' stand for?" And when I told them "Shing-yah," my colleagues would usually erupt into laughter, chanting "Shing-yah, ching chang chung hiyah" or other gibberish in a mock Asian accent.
This response to me--born and raised in the state of Georgia--and I even spoke English with a Southern drawl!! I can't imagine how much worse it could have been for Cho who, after living in the US for 15 years, still had a foreign Korean accent. He probably used the "Question Mark" out of fear of being taunted, since he had no other name to go by....I at least had a Westernized first name to save me from such ridicule. We see his use of "?" in a class sign-in sheet. I imagine this resulted from his experience of countless times of such name lists being read aloud, every time fearfully anticipating when the teacher would read his name, knowing it would lead to snickers or outright bursts of laughter by the classroom. On NBC I saw a clip of an instant messenger conversation where he refused to provide his identity. I imagine in his sad and delusional fantasies he would hope that the person he was stalking on the other side wouldn't realize he was Asian, fall in love with him online (or something along the lines of "You've Got Mail"), and could accept him later on, strange foreign-ness and all...who knows what he was thinking. But in my mind, there is no doubt as to the source of this mysterious "Question Mark."
RICHARD McBEEF
I have to admit I'm still pondering this one over. As mentioned by the media Cho wasn't the greatest writer, but I see quite a bit of symbolism in this play. This play is the closest allegory we have to Cho's life experience. First of all, the story if of a 13 year old boy whose father reportedly dies in a boating accident and gets a new ex-football player stepfather, Richard McBeef. The boating accident is symbolic of Cho's family's journey from Korea to America. In that voyage, Cho feels cutoff from his roots, culture, and heritage, and hence symbolically experiences the death of his true biological father (easy to make this connection with the male-centric Korean culture). Further, this strained relationship and Cho's accusation that Richard McBeef killed his father so he could "get into [his] mom's pant" may also symbolize what Cho views as America's imperialistic conspiracy (he rants about in his manifesto), as this next section discusses the symbolism behind "Richard McBeef."
Cho is all of a sudden thrown into a new and unfamiliar American culture, symbolized by his new stepfather Richard McBeef. We've seen his criticism of "hedonism" and "debauchery", showing his purposeful intent of the choice of the name "Dick" to symbolize the high emphasis on sex in America. Richard McBeef also personifies what Cho views as America's imperialistic tendencies, since Richard "knew [John/Cho's] mom was too good for [John/Cho's] father. So you took him out and stole her." In this light, whereas his father symbolized his Korean culture and heritage that was destroyed, his mother symbolizes the attempts by Koreans to assimilate to American culture, hysterical and unwilling to accept the truth of what is actually happening to today's Korean-American youth and merely judging by outward appearances. The fact that Richard McBeef is an ex-football player says a lot too, as we all know what football players were like in high school; the handsome athlete all the girls love [which he also sought after], but also the source of ridicule and bullying. The choice of McBeef as a last name is also quite intentional, symbolizing the excess of McDonald's and bovines symbolizing fat, lazy...and ready for slaughter. Through him he accuses American culture of murdering his Korean heritage. Since we could entertain that Richard McBeef the football player is something that Cho may have aspired to be but knew he could never achieve, another possible dimension is that Richard McBeef may also symbolize Cho's sexual frustration he encounters here in the US. As we have discovered, many of Cho's advances towards American women were rebuffed. Realizing his aspirations for having a love relationship with an American woman are futile, he resigns to a Freudian "Must Kill Dick" mentality to put an end to his frustration. I'll admit this might be a bit of a stretch...and finally to state the obvious, he probably also felt that Americans were "dicks" to him.
The ending of Richard McBeef also speaks volumes. Up to this point, Richard has been quite passive, and outside of his accusations we actually have no reason to believe he even actually molested John. Perhaps Cho realizes that as much as the Americans in his life have taunted and ridiculed him, no one has actually caused any real physical harm. He accuses Richard McBeef of physically raping him, when in fact perhaps Cho only feels psychologically raped and tormented by his exclusion. Or perhaps Richard's passiveness is Cho's view of American's "politically correct" culture that is too scared to say anything out of fear. But in perhaps his final foreshadowing, as Cho attempts to kill Richard McBeef by shoving a candy bar down his throat, deep down he knows that American culture is too big of an opponent to fight back against on his own, and the true America will fight back and not tolerate such unacceptable behavior. At this point, perhaps he already had devised his macabre plan and envisioned he would be brought down in a blaze of glory by law enforcement when he finally decides to fight back against American society/Richard McBeef.
The boy's name "John" is quite generic, even glaringly generic, for such a disturbing piece. Cho uses the name John and other generic western names in other writings. In light of the "Question Mark" discussion, perhaps this is a manifestation of his desire to have just a normal name to fit in with his peers. Again, might be a bit of a stretch.
April 16th, 2007
The media mentions that he had postponed his plan multiple times, but in my opinion, there is no other day that such a planned out deed could have been carried out. Cho's videos leave little doubt that he is well aware of the Columbine shooters Eric and Dylan, and in his mind he idolizes them as martyrs. We compare this duo to Cho and see little similarity--in fact I would have trouble believing that people such as Eric and Dylan would even welcome Cho into their circles. But in Cho's mind, they were speaking up and acting on behalf of a larger group---those experiencing the pain of ostracism and exclusion by society. With the April 20th anniversary falling on a Friday this year, Cho could not have picked a worse day to carry out his plan if his main objective was to inspire copycat killers. Indeed he even created the media "manifesto" that show his delusions of grandeur of starting a "revolution", which reflects his desire for his acts to inspire as many as possible. He must have known that by carrying out his plan early Monday morning at 7am, he would achieve the maximum amount of media coverage possible that week. The purpose of the non-stop mind-numbing media coverage? To inspire other societal outcasts to carry out a similar plan...and what more symbolic day than the anniversary of the Columbine shootings? And indeed, we saw a number of threats at schools around the country all week....and I am thankful that we didn't see anything worse this past Friday.
But not just the timing...even the sequence of events that occurred last Monday, to me were quite intentional. The media package was purposefully made. The plan for mailing the package between shootings was even more intentional, almost a cry out for attention, as he seemed to be saying, "Look! You didn't think I could commit the act. But I've done it. And you [the world and elitist snobs who have excluded me] have caused me so much pain in my life, I have no remorse and I'm going to do even more." In all likelihood, I imagine Cho elaborately and carefully planned every detail.