RSS Feed (xml)
Friday, April 27, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
An insightful take on the repercussions of the Virginia Tech Shootings
What May Come: Asian Americans and the Virginia Tech Shootings
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 fifteen 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 is currently finishing her PhD program in sociology at Temple University and is a volunteer with the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, an anti-war and counter-military recruitment organization (www.objector.org). She can be reached at tnopper@yahoo.com.
Insightful, thought-provoking and probably a realist take on reality. Let's hope sensitivity and rationality prevails over this sad unfortunate shooting incident.
Suddenly, Mcluhan's medium theory is not that unconvincing...the medium can be the message.
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 fifteen 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 is currently finishing her PhD program in sociology at Temple University and is a volunteer with the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, an anti-war and counter-military recruitment organization (www.objector.org). She can be reached at tnopper@yahoo.com.
Insightful, thought-provoking and probably a realist take on reality. Let's hope sensitivity and rationality prevails over this sad unfortunate shooting incident.
Suddenly, Mcluhan's medium theory is not that unconvincing...the medium can be the message.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Monday, April 09, 2007
A must-read article from our dearest Prof.
POST THIS ARTICLE ON YOUR BLOG TO INCREASE READERSHIP( a call to increase people's awareness of a constructive alternative voice- inspired by a suggestion from Fatma. :p)
Ministers' salary increase: Can it be delayed until there is more public consultation?
THE views expressed so far on this difficult issue rightly deserve attention, even as Singaporeans await the Government's presentation of its case in Parliament next week.
Given the unhappiness, it is hoped that the Government will do more to soothe this feeling during the Parliament sitting, and address this issue beyond the offer of relevant statistics and other pragmatic arguments.
This issue is not new. So too the attendant shock that many Singaporeans react to when this pay scheme was publicly goaded in the early 1990s and hotly debated in Parliament in 1995.
Let us recap the two sides of the argument. To the Government, we are fooling ourselves if we want to lure top talents but refuse to pay them top salaries, and that moral counter-points must give way to pragmatic ones.
The cost of living, the competitiveness of the market place in a global economy, the high standards of integrity and performance expected of ministers and the equally high cost to their private lives are imperatives that must be taken into account.
MM Lee even once argued that 'moral values on pay are good only for textbooks on socialism and political tracts on social justice'.
However, to many Singaporeans, other factors must be given consideration. To begin with, is it right to compare jobs in the public and private sectors since there are obvious fundamental differences between the two?
Secondly, while many have no problem with raising ministerial salaries as a matter of principle, the quantum of the raise seems to be unduly high, making our Cabinet ministers among the most highly paid in the world.
Thirdly, while we must credit the political leadership for securing Singapore a sterling economic position in the world - our Republic's GDP growth rate and foreign reserves are among the highest in the world - such a remarkable achievement could not have been attained without the contributions and sacrifices of an equally productive workforce.
Finally, this increase of ministerial salaries may convey the wrong signal that money is actually the bottomline, even in such a nationally important issue of political contribution and service.
What about other redeeming intangibles such as honour and sense of duty, dedication, passion and commitment, loyalty and service?
It may be difficult for many to believe that the talent pool is so small and that the able are so money-minded that the best way to get them to come forward is to give them more money.
Hopefully, the Government will do more to appease this unhappiness. What about delaying this proposed increase until more public consultation is done and a better way of compensating the ministers and senior civil servants be found?
Otherwise, many Singaporeans will feel the sheer helplessness that however unhappy they are about matters that are close to their hearts they will have little chance to be redressed, both outside Parliament and inside - and this is not good for Singapore's future.
Dr Hussin Mutalib
Source- Straits Times Forum April 6 2007 Online Story
I just had to share this letter written to Straits Times Forum by our dearest PS Prof, Dr Hussin Mutalib for his upfront and sincere views about the recent Ministers'/ Senior Civil Servants' pay increase saga and I bet his letter is very easy to miss. Have anyone wondered why it is not published on the printed version of ST? I guess the answer is too obvious and politically insensitive to spell out but we all know don't we.(if don't know private-message me, shhhh, don't too loud, k, sensitive, 'fear factor' you see) Oh well, constructive voices like Dr Mutalib should be heard and discussed more broadly even if it borders on opposition because regardless of your stand on it, the need for sensible, rational alternative voices should not just be heard but celebrated.
Oh, my stand on this whole issue?! I can't say...its politically sensitive, OB markers!!! omg..SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.....
Ministers' salary increase: Can it be delayed until there is more public consultation?
THE views expressed so far on this difficult issue rightly deserve attention, even as Singaporeans await the Government's presentation of its case in Parliament next week.
Given the unhappiness, it is hoped that the Government will do more to soothe this feeling during the Parliament sitting, and address this issue beyond the offer of relevant statistics and other pragmatic arguments.
This issue is not new. So too the attendant shock that many Singaporeans react to when this pay scheme was publicly goaded in the early 1990s and hotly debated in Parliament in 1995.
Let us recap the two sides of the argument. To the Government, we are fooling ourselves if we want to lure top talents but refuse to pay them top salaries, and that moral counter-points must give way to pragmatic ones.
The cost of living, the competitiveness of the market place in a global economy, the high standards of integrity and performance expected of ministers and the equally high cost to their private lives are imperatives that must be taken into account.
MM Lee even once argued that 'moral values on pay are good only for textbooks on socialism and political tracts on social justice'.
However, to many Singaporeans, other factors must be given consideration. To begin with, is it right to compare jobs in the public and private sectors since there are obvious fundamental differences between the two?
Secondly, while many have no problem with raising ministerial salaries as a matter of principle, the quantum of the raise seems to be unduly high, making our Cabinet ministers among the most highly paid in the world.
Thirdly, while we must credit the political leadership for securing Singapore a sterling economic position in the world - our Republic's GDP growth rate and foreign reserves are among the highest in the world - such a remarkable achievement could not have been attained without the contributions and sacrifices of an equally productive workforce.
Finally, this increase of ministerial salaries may convey the wrong signal that money is actually the bottomline, even in such a nationally important issue of political contribution and service.
What about other redeeming intangibles such as honour and sense of duty, dedication, passion and commitment, loyalty and service?
It may be difficult for many to believe that the talent pool is so small and that the able are so money-minded that the best way to get them to come forward is to give them more money.
Hopefully, the Government will do more to appease this unhappiness. What about delaying this proposed increase until more public consultation is done and a better way of compensating the ministers and senior civil servants be found?
Otherwise, many Singaporeans will feel the sheer helplessness that however unhappy they are about matters that are close to their hearts they will have little chance to be redressed, both outside Parliament and inside - and this is not good for Singapore's future.
Dr Hussin Mutalib
Source- Straits Times Forum April 6 2007 Online Story
I just had to share this letter written to Straits Times Forum by our dearest PS Prof, Dr Hussin Mutalib for his upfront and sincere views about the recent Ministers'/ Senior Civil Servants' pay increase saga and I bet his letter is very easy to miss. Have anyone wondered why it is not published on the printed version of ST? I guess the answer is too obvious and politically insensitive to spell out but we all know don't we.(if don't know private-message me, shhhh, don't too loud, k, sensitive, 'fear factor' you see) Oh well, constructive voices like Dr Mutalib should be heard and discussed more broadly even if it borders on opposition because regardless of your stand on it, the need for sensible, rational alternative voices should not just be heard but celebrated.
Oh, my stand on this whole issue?! I can't say...its politically sensitive, OB markers!!! omg..SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.....
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Underachievement
Underachievement is a sin. It is a very bitter pill. To not meet one's potential because he/she did not try hard enough is just wrong. Failure via this manner is really a pity and cannot be forgiven. However, ain't everyone guilty of that at some point in life? For me, I am facing a constant problem, the problem of contentment. It is such a recurring theme in my life story, with regards to my goals in life..and its all encapsulated in the philosophy I had held dearly since jc,
'Aim for the moon, drop amongst the stars.' Why am I always on the stars?? This question keep popping in my mind. Am I supposed to be realistic and settle for 2nd best all my life? Maybe my moon is so elusive because I have followed the thinking that the sky is the limit for quite some time in the process of charting my goals and sticking to them. A 2nd upper can be a satisfactory outcome for many people or even bring much happiness but for me, the failure to get a 1st Class is starting to haunt me. I can't say that I deserve it fully because I'm not really a hardcore mugger(mugger yes, hardcore no). With the exception of last semester, I feel that the amount of effort I put in should have translated into the results that I deserved..so... it has not proven to be the case.......
Internship hunting season this time round provided me with a torrid time. It served as such a major contrast to last year where I faced relatively lesser problems in getting an internship I wanted with the ultra elitist SIP programme( 5 out of 8 of my presentation mates were in the first class honours range). This time round, it has not been smooth sailing and I have certainly been demoralised in the hunt with rejection letters and no-replies. Getting an internship offer at the start of the month provided me with more relief than joy.
Sure, the sky is the limit. One of life's most valuable lessons starts from infancy, one learns how to stand, walk, run and finally fly(metaphorically). It has indeed been a humbling experience, when one's achievements fall short of his expectations. I shall try to learn as much as I can, pursue my dreams, take failures into my stride and strive to have a life that I always wanted.
'Aim for the moon, drop amongst the stars.' Why am I always on the stars?? This question keep popping in my mind. Am I supposed to be realistic and settle for 2nd best all my life? Maybe my moon is so elusive because I have followed the thinking that the sky is the limit for quite some time in the process of charting my goals and sticking to them. A 2nd upper can be a satisfactory outcome for many people or even bring much happiness but for me, the failure to get a 1st Class is starting to haunt me. I can't say that I deserve it fully because I'm not really a hardcore mugger(mugger yes, hardcore no). With the exception of last semester, I feel that the amount of effort I put in should have translated into the results that I deserved..so... it has not proven to be the case.......
Internship hunting season this time round provided me with a torrid time. It served as such a major contrast to last year where I faced relatively lesser problems in getting an internship I wanted with the ultra elitist SIP programme( 5 out of 8 of my presentation mates were in the first class honours range). This time round, it has not been smooth sailing and I have certainly been demoralised in the hunt with rejection letters and no-replies. Getting an internship offer at the start of the month provided me with more relief than joy.
Sure, the sky is the limit. One of life's most valuable lessons starts from infancy, one learns how to stand, walk, run and finally fly(metaphorically). It has indeed been a humbling experience, when one's achievements fall short of his expectations. I shall try to learn as much as I can, pursue my dreams, take failures into my stride and strive to have a life that I always wanted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)