Two Weeks That Will Live in Infamy

One only needs to be frank here. The past two weeks had raised not only issues that need to be discussed in America; the past fortnight reminded us all how vunerable we truly are in terms of understanding humanity. It seems that sometimes there are events that are out of our control. No matter how we want to have everything nicely ordered, there are chaotic occurrences that seem to bring matters that are seemingly swept under the rug back into the national spotlight.

Race is something that is emotional to a lot people. But what the Don Imus event and the shooting at Virginia Tech taught is that America not only needs to deal with its multiculturalism; it needs to discuss how citizens treat the disenfranchised in the nation.

Cho Seung Hui, I reiterate, was deeply troubled. As his writings and videologs demonstrated, he had deep seated feelings concerning how he viewed the world and how the world treated him. Unfortunately, he took his angst and rage out against his classmates and faculty which resulted in 32 lost lives, making himself the 33rd one. In the midst of this tragedy, one has to take a step back and continue to research the issues why. Although CNN (with small dabblings from Soledad O'Brien and Anderson Cooper) tried to delve into the cultural angle, there still needs to be more work done in this area because it would probably say much more about his attitudes and motivations than the usual forensic explaination that paints the "school shooter".

One of the things that stood out about Mr. Cho was the fact that he was bullied in High School and College. And as CNN noted in their special report this evening, the alleged gunman left secondary school without any friends. He ceased to know his own personality to the point of referring to himself as a question mark. Others refused to understand him. Since, he did not get any help in trying to personally find himself, he imploded. His implosion sadly caused a tragedy that will never be erased in the minds of the victims of this terrible happening as well as the viewers who watched it. He died leaving more questions instead of answers.

What was especially relevant about the last week is the fact that there was plenty of rage to spread around. This rage was especially punctuated when NBC and other news outlets tried to air the writings and videolog of Mr. Cho. The outcry of the public was so fierce that it resulted in the media pulling back their coverage to suit the temperment of those who were grieving. When you are thinking in terms of the media mindset, one has to ask whether it was the right thing to do.

Knowing that uncovering the motivations of Mr. Cho was a story itself (despite the remarks from some of the audience who said his side of the story was a "non-issue because they didn't want to know), it probably was a stab at rare decency that the news organizations decided not to delve into this aspect of the story more than that one day. But for those people in the audience who truly wanted to know why Mr. Cho did what he did, this act only served to prove that sometimes special interests get in the way of objectivity--especially when it comes down to the public's right to know.

Amongst all this, his race was a non-issue. Part of this reason was because that still a lot of the viewing public do not "see" race. They would rather be "color-blind". When race is usually dealt with in the news, it is done in the perspective of the dominant culture with few other interpretations.

Say what you will, but Mr. Cho's posthumous presence on the small screen disturbingly brought up not only matters which had to do with stereotype (especially when commented upon by clinicians and criminologists from the dominant culture). His aura alone challenged and reinforced stereotypes that people had about non-white people. And despite the fact that the news outlets tried to write off this aspect, even they were ill equipped to deal with this phenomenon except to resort to the tried and true interpretations of the "school shooter": a "loner"; "always persecuted"; "tried to fit in"; "vented his rage in writings and songs (Collective Soul)". But with the cultural issue held out at the surface, one thing the media will not discuss is the phenomenon of bullying--especially when it has to do with non-white people in education. There is a lot to be said here, but then again, it brings up another issue about culture and society: the aftermath of Don Imus' words.

Mr. Imus was fired from his job for calling the Women's Basketball team from Rutgers University, "nappy headed ho's". For some people commenting on Mr. Imus' phrase, they felt that too much was made out of this notion. And of course, they vented the blame on civil rights dignitaries Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. The problem that both Mr. Cho and Mr. Imus' case presents is that there is always a pass when it comes to derogatory things said by the dominant culture. And when they are spoken in reference to a person of color, it is usually referred to "as a joke". The speaker "didn't mean anything by it". Or, there is an expressed obliviousness to the meaning of the "derogatory speech", no matter how hurtful it is to the people of color involved.

During the coverage of the tragedy of Virginia Tech, much was made out of the fact that Cho somehow defied the stereotypes of the "model minority". It was as if he went down the wrong path because he "didn't try to work toward the American Dream" and that "he couldn't fit in and work really hard". But yet, he was "silent" and "reserved". But no one noticed how much the stereotypes weighed upon him. His underlying anger in defiance of these stereotypes came out unfortunately in his works. And for the people of color who found offence from being called "nappy-headed", such phrases resort from the dominant gaze marking the presence of non-white people in society. Added with the constant ridiculing of the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, the same stereotypes weighed heavily on Black people because in the dominant culture, they "didn't get over it" and "screamed about race again". Not only that, they "attacked Mr. Imus' rights of free speech". No sooner after that, Mr. Imus was turned into an "embattled" person who was being used as a "scapegoat" as a result of a "non-issue" that made "too much fuss".

But what people don't understand about both cases is that these stereotypes exist. And there are people who are from the dominant culture that participate in this type of denigrating speech--if not in whispers, but also in a public venue. And there has been too many times, the dominant culture has told non-white people to "get over it" and to "stop crying about it" in order to force them to be complicit with the things said. And when situations arise that results from all this inverted anger, still the pieces are left for the public to ask why instead of trying to discuss the issue honestly.

Most importantly, in the dominant gaze, one expects a non-white person to "sweep cultural issues" under the rug like one does. But when these things are in a person of color's face day in and out, how can one hold it in and remain silent? A non-white person cannot, especially when time after time pundits like Mr. Imus and the rest of the media engage in this descriptive talk without any criticism back. And when there is an outcry over the denigrating language, it suddenly becomes bothersome, so much so, that spokespersons from the dominant culture turn against people of color for bringing it up. And there is no idea how much it affects non-white people when this happens. Instead, there are calls from the dominant public to "join American culture" and "stop being a victim".

The problem with this is the fact that such talk does no good. And when it is echoed in the media over and over, it only seems to reinforce the type of behavior that forces non-white people to hold in their feelings in fear that their experiences might be dismissed. When people of color do bring these things up amongst themselves, there is always someone from the "peanut gallery" who will call for them to "take responsbility" and "stop bringing up these things and treat people like all humans regardless of color". Unfortunately, this talk does not reveal the awareness that despite the fact that we are all "human beings", there are differences between us that has caused institutional racism as a result of history, politics and society.

Instead, there are some who would like the rest of us to think that "nothing happened". And some will blatantly and petulantly announce in discussions about culture, "There's nothing to see here".

But there is something to see here. These two issues reveal that there is much more to be said before the healing takes place in America. After all, America has to not only deal with its recent past in terms of disparaging treatment towards some of its cultural groups; it has to come to terms with itself in recognizing what has happened to groups outside of the dominant culture, especially when dealing with feelings and experiences that are rendered different.