When massacres are normal: guns and Virginia Tech
You are contributing your stories and/or files to The April 16 Archive, which is developing a permanent digital record of the events surrounding the tragedy on the Virginia Tech campus on April 16, 2007. Your participation in this project will allow future researchers, and people such as yourself, to gain a greater understanding of these events and the responses to them.
Thursday, April 19th, 2007 While we spent the last two weeks railing at each other about racial insults, sexist jokes, hip hop music, apologies that won't fly, and weighty matters related to the First Amendment, a deranged college student sat plotting the mass murder of his classmates along with his own suicide on the idyllic campus of Virginia Tech. Now that the fog of horror is beginning to lift everyone is scrambling to find someone to point a finger at. Last week rap music was to blame for the arsenal of racist and sexist insults that are at the disposal of shock jocks like Don Imus. This week the NRA and Hollywood are to blame. The NRA, says the Left, makes it possible for mentally sick young men like Cho Seung-Hui to get his hands on an arsenal of weapons to act out their private fantasies of murder and suicide. At the same time, says the Right, Hollywood is to blame for churning out an arsenal of violent movies like Quentin Tarantino "Grindhouse" that feed our appetite for carnage and violence. Nothing like hateful speech and violent rampages to keep things in perspective. If we're going to blame NRA, Hollywood, or even video games we all have some blame to shoulder. Lord knows, ours is culture that is fascinated with violence. I am as liable as the next person for indulging in the guilty pleasurable pasttime of watching crime dramas on television every week (e.g., Law and Order, CSI, Cold Case). I don't know when it happened. Recant: I do know. But that's another story. What I also know is that figuring out the motivation behind the murder is half the" fun" of watching the crime show. But the rampage at Virginia Tech is a sobering wake up call, or it should be. It doesn't matter what "motivated" the gunman behind the Virginia Tech shooting. I won't join the media detectives in pouring over the identity of the killer's family and the putative ethnic nature of his rage, nor do I care to watch as journalists shove a microphone in the face of every person who ever bumped up against him in the hallway or try reconstructing what he had for breakfast the morning of his rampage. Besides, we haven't bothered to do the same type of psychological and cultural analysis upon those who four years ago committed our youth to the bloodbath and carnage reported weekly out of Iraq. Enough. Stop the violence by keeping up the protest against pro-gun lobbyists and by boycotting movies that showcase gratuitous violence. Better time is spent praying for the tortured souls that commit these acts of violence. Stop the violence by turning it off in ourselves. After tragedies like the one this week, says one Virginia Tech student who also survived the Columbine massacre of ten years ago this week, normalcy never returns. After a steady diet of violence all these years, can any of us say what normal — or decency and civility, for that matter — is anymore? -- Original Source: Something Within by Rev. Dr. Renita J. Weems http://www.somethingwithin.com/blog/?cat=73 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
Cho's World was rooted in a Christian Tradition
In the Aug. 26 Roanoke Times, reporter Duncan Adams had a news story that succinctly wrapped up what we knew about Seung-Hui Cho at that point, before the Virginia Tech Independent Review Panel released its final report. The article, "There was something evil aiding him," answered some old questions and highlighted some that have yet to be answered. What really struck me, as a medievalist and researcher in the history of religion, was the section titled "Demon spirits" and specifically the comments of Pastor Dong Cheol Lee from One Mind Church in Cho's hometown of Woodbridge. Cho and his family didn't attend that church, but the pastor felt compelled to reach out to Cho on the recommendation of a neighbor. Lee believes Cho was basically a good person but that he was possessed by the devil or some sort of "demonic spirit" when he murdered all those people. This raises a significant point, one thus far generally overlooked in the reporting about the events of April 16 -- the role of religion in motivating Cho to do what he did. I suggested this in a June 6 commentary, "Cho's violent crusade ripped from the Middle Ages." Look again through this and the rest of the coverage of Cho's manifesto. Look how often he evoked God/Jesus. And look again at these new snippets: the Bible as Literature class that he felt so "content" in, his contact with a particular type of Christianity during his upbringing, how he told the literature professor, Nikki Giovanni, she was going to hell. Reporter Adams may have been more right than he knew when he ended his story with: "During one session, Giovanni described having once eaten turtle soup. Students shared experiences of consuming other unusual animal fare. Cho's poem the next week lashed Giovanni and the class. 'He told us we were going to hell,' said [fellow student Tara] Marciniak-McGuire. During Cho's short, tortured life, he knew that territory well." Cho's mental illness made him live in a world of his own creation, but that world was one with recognizable roots in the Christian tradition -- a world populated by God and the devil, in which they are both still active forces in the world; a world where Cho could choose sides in this struggle and think that he was doing God's work; a world where violence in the name of religion is justified because the stakes, one's immortal soul, are so high. Cho likely thought himself to be a "soldier of Christ," like the crusaders; like the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda; like Eric Rudolph and Paul Jennings Hill, who killed to stop abortion. Mainstream Christianity does not -- and the vast majority of Christians may not -- condone such actions, but perhaps it's time to stop burying our head in the sand, pretending that such ideas aren't ultimately understandable, if still unfortunately familiar. -- Originally published in The Roanoke Times, 9/11/07 Source: http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/wb/xp-131592
Cho's Violent Crusade Ripped from the Middle Ages
As a medieval historian, one rarely feels that his expertise can shed some light on a current debate. But I teach at Virginia Tech. Now that the semester is over and there is time to reflect, I have been struck by how "medieval" the events of this past April seem -- both Seung-Hui Cho's violence and our collective revulsion to it. In the snippets of Cho's "manifesto" that have been released to the public, there is rhetoric of (likely imagined) persecution of the innocent, violent defense of the helpless, and Cho's perception of himself as a martyr by appropriating explicitly Christian imagery -- Jesus himself, the cross, and even the torments the saints endured for their faith (burning like St. Polycarp, suffocating like St. Cecilia and beheading like St. Denis, etc.). Even Cho's oft-repeated statement that "Jesus loves crucifying me" reinforces the idea of martyrdom, suggesting, as countless biographies of the saints have, that God triumphs through the martyr's sacrifice. Taken alone, these statements might be interesting from a purely academic standpoint. Unfortunately, we all know what followed Cho's statements. So, it's this combination of language and action that's most "medieval," since the essential elements of Cho's manifesto mirror Pope Urban II's speech at Clermont (in modern France) in 1095 that launched the First Crusade. From what we can reconstruct of that speech, Urban first railed against the sins of his listeners. But then, when the hellfires beckoned, Urban offered them a way out -- a path to heaven. Go to Jerusalem. Reclaim the land where Jesus was crucified and where he would return in triumph. This land rightfully belongs to us, Urban continued, so emulate the suffering of Christ and "take up [your] cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23). Defend your fellow Christians who suffer under (an imagined) oppression by God's enemies. Become a "soldier of Christ" and destroy "the enemy." God would reward you with martyrdom if you died. Jesus. The cross. Suffering. Martyrdom. Defense of the innocent. Violence. Cries of "God wills it!" rang through the crowd. More than 100,000 people, many of whom had never left their village, decided to walk the 4,000 miles to Jerusalem. Again, we all know what came next. It's important to note that neither of the events of 1095 or 2007 "just happened." There are explanations, even if they're not comfortable ones. Urban's message met a receptive audience because long-held ideas and traditions in the West came together just so. So too with Cho. He created a mental world, which only rarely touched reality, drawn from our culture's obsession with violence and guns as well as a radical Christianity, likely generated by his upbringing and continued interest in the religion, witnessed by the number of courses on religious topics that he took here at Tech. This particular Christianity isn't unlike that unleashed during the First Crusade, even if such language of violence can still be found at places in our own, modern society. Cho's mental world divided everything between good and evil and called for the oppressed to rise and take vengeance. Cho's mental illness made him cross a line and act upon these ideas. Unfortunately, it did not generate the ideas themselves, though. But just as Cho was, in a way, an heir to the ideas of the First Crusade, so too are the rest of us for, in addition to violence and intolerance, the First Crusade was also about peace -- true, lasting peace. As conceived in 1095, the violent reconquest of Jerusalem would hasten the arrival of God's kingdom on Earth, an earthly paradise in which all would share. Later in the Middle Ages, the influential thought of Joachim of Fiore changed this tradition, stripping away the violence that preceded this kingdom, saying that all would peacefully -- peacefully -- come together. And just as Urban's vision has endured, so too has Joachim's. The world, without hesitation, now condemns actions like Cho's. Violence is not normative anymore. If nothing else, the Middle Ages show us how the intellectual path we're on isn't the only one available. In 1095, 100,000 people thought that violence could bring peace. In 2007, Cho believed the same and the world cried out in horror. Cho took one path from 1095 and the vast majority took the other. In and of itself, and in the middle of all this sadness, this is a reason to look forward with hope. -- Originally published in _The Roanoke Times_, 6/2/07 Source: http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/wb/xp-119117
By:Sarah A. Newlin Posted: 4/27/07 I am writing in response to Richard Poskozim's opinion piece in the 4/25 issue of The Lantern. In the article, the author seems to imply that Cho's motivation to kill somehow originated from his alleged mental illness: "After everything that's come out about him, I think it's pretty safe to say his motivation was that he was crazy." While it is clear that something had deeply distressed Mr. Cho, one should be careful about jumping to conclusions about how mental illness played a role in this tragic event. Numerous studies have shown that it is incredibly rare for someone with a mental illness to commit gross acts of violence, especially on the scale of the Virginia Tech shootings. Violence is no more prevalent among individuals with mental illnesses than among the general public. In actuality, those suffering from a mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. Furthermore, I am concerned that the focus on the shooter's possible mental illness will cause many students on college campuses who suffer from mental illnesses to not seek mental health services or to be feared and shunned by their peers, leading to their further isolation and discrimination. If any positives can come out of this horrible event, I hope that one will be a larger discussion about the need for increased recognition of mental health issues among college students and the need for adequate treatment, support and recovery resources on college campuses. I ask that The Lantern staff take this into consideration as they continue to cover the tragic circumstances surrounding the Virginia Tech shootings. Sarah A. Newlin Program Manager Campus Suicide Prevention Program -- Original Source:The Lantern - April 27, 2007
A Statement from the International Action Center Yet another rampage has occurred at a school, this time leaving 33 people dead at Virginia Tech-the worst such incident ever at a U.S. college campus. The news media seem stunned and surprised, yet their coverage sounds so similar to the stories about Columbine eight years ago. They dwell on the personality of the young man the police say did the shooting, before killing himself. They talk about him being a "loner," depressed, perhaps angry at women. But aren't there lonely and depressed people all over the world? Many countries have high suicide rates. Why is it that here some become mass murderers? The U.S. is the world leader in seemingly random acts of violence by individuals. Why? President George W. Bush rushed to Virginia to speak at a large convocation the day after the killings and tried to set the tone for what could be said about them. "It's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering," he said. Don't ask why, don't try to understand. It makes no sense. "Have faith" instead, was Bush's message. But there ARE reasons these things happen here, and they are pretty clear to the rest of the world. It's just in the United States that no one is supposed to talk about the reasons. What distinguishes this country from the rest of the world? It is neither the most affluent nor the poorest. It is neither the most secular nor the most religious. It is not the most culturally homogeneous nor is it the most diverse. But in one area, it stands virtually alone. It has the biggest arsenal of high-tech weaponry in the world, way surpassing every other country. It has military bases spread all over; most countries have no troops outside their borders. It is conducting two hot wars at the moment, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has sent hundreds of thousands of troops abroad over the last few years. Every day, the public here is supposed to identify with soldiers who burst into homes in Baghdad, round up the people and take them away for "interrogation"-which everyone knows now can mean torture and indefinite detainment. It also sends heavily armed "special ops" on secret missions to countless other countries, like the ones who just facilitated the invasion and bombing of Somalia, or the ones who have been trying to stir up opposition in Iran. This is documented in the news media. The immense brutality of these colonial wars, as well as earlier ones, is praised from the White House on down as the best, the ONLY way to achieve what the political leaders and their influential, rich backers decide is necessary to protect their world empire. Do lots of people get killed? "Stuff happens," said former war secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Collateral damage," says the Pentagon. At home, the U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Over 2 million people are locked up in the prison system each year, most of them people of color. When commercial armed security guards are also taken into consideration, the U.S. has millions of employees who use guns and other coercive paraphernalia in their jobs. In the final analysis, the military and the police exist to perpetuate and protect this present unjust system of capitalist inequality, where a few can claim personal ownership over a vast economy built by the sweat and blood of hundreds of millions of workers. And the more divided, the more polarized the society becomes, the higher the level of coercion and violence. Assault weapons are now everywhere in this society, as are Tasers, handcuffs, clubs and tear gas. They most often start out in the hands of the police, the military and other agents of the state, and can then turn up anywhere. Violence is a big money maker in the mass culture. Television, films, pulp novels, Internet sites, video games-all dwell on "sociopaths" while glorifying the state's use of violence, often supplemented by a lone vigilante. By the time children reach their teens, they have already seen thousands of murders and killings on television. And these days even more suspense is added in countless programs that involve stalking and terror against women-and increasingly children. As the Duke rape case and so many "escort service" ads show, women of color are particularly subject to exploitation and have little recourse to any justice. And as the murders along the border show, immigrants of color are fair game for racist killers. The social soil of capitalism can alienate and enrage an unstable and miserable person who should be getting help but can't find it. If, as reports are saying, the young man accused of these killings was on anti-depressant medication, it is all the more evidence that, at a time when hospitals are closing and health care is unavailable for tens of millions, treating mental health problems requires more from society than just prescribing dubious chemicals. Many liberal commentators are taking this occasion to renew the demand for tougher gun laws. Yes, assault weapons are horrible, but so are bunker buster bombs, helicopters that fire thousands of rounds a minute, and the ultimate-nuclear weapons. Disarming the people is not the answer, especially when the government is armed to the teeth and uses brutality and coercion daily. The best antidote to these tragedies is to build a movement for profound social change, a movement directed at solving the great problems depressing so much of humanity today, whether they be wars or global climate change or the loneliness of the dog-eat-dog society. -- Original Source: http://www.iactucson.org/VirginiaTech.html Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5
By Keith Boykin, in politics Tuesday, April 17 2007, 10:24AM The news was gruesome and alarming. Reuters reported that at least 30 people were shot yesterday in a deadly gun rampage that rocked a city once known for its safety and scholarship. By now, you've heard about the story, and many of us have already stopped paying attention. But I'm not talking about the deadly school shooting in Virginia Monday morning. I'm talking about the deadly violence in Iraq that goes on everyday. While most of the world was understandably horrified by the campus shooting at Virginia Tech yesterday, almost no one paid attention to the 30 people who were shot and killed in Baghdad on the same day. The shock and horror of watching such dramatic violence in Virginia immediately resonated with Americans. But here's something else to ponder. What if it happened every day? What if we saw that kind of carnage in our communities every night on the evening news? It sounds far-fetched, but that's exactly the situation that faces many Iraqis almost every day of the year. If the shooting in Virginia tells us anything about human society, it should tell us that violence is far too common in the world. It's not just an American problem or an Iraqi problem, it is a global problem. What kind of world do we live in where young students have virtually unfettered access to sophisticated deadly weapons that can be used to kill their classmates and teachers? And how did we become desensitized to the tens of thousands of civilian casulaties in a war we're still fighting in Baghdad? I don't think it is possible to stop every murder or every killing that takes place in this country or abroad, but I do believe we have a responsibility to promote the conditions for peace. For all the talk about our Christian values in America, we are an extraordinarily violent society. The FBI reported 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2005 and more than 16,000 murders. That's a drop from the record high figures in the early 1990s but it shows that we are still far too violent. Through elective wars, capital punishment, gang violence, and media depictions of violence, we demonstrate our collective societal preference for violence as a solution to our problems. I don't know what motivated the young student in Virginia to shoot up his classmates, and I don't know what motivates the suicide bombers in Iraq to blow up their neighbors. But I do know that we have a duty to promote peace in this country and abroad. Imagine the impact that could be made if America lead an international campaign for peace instead of a war on terror. Imagine the goodwill we could generate if we diverted some of the $500 billion we've spent on war in recent years so that we could build hospitals, schools, and housing throughout the undeveloped world. Imagine the difference it might make if our leaders dropped some of the macho rhetoric and talked about service, duty and community responsibility? I know there will be much discussion in the next few days about gun control and mental health counseling and legislation, and I welcome that conversation. But we should also ask ourselves about the world we've created and what each of us can do to make it better and more peaceful. The Virginia shooting was shocking, in part, because it was so unusual. Unlike the Iraqis, we're not accustomed to seeing such large-scale violence on a regular basis. Or, more precisely, we're not accustomed to seeing it here in the United States, because clearly we know it's happening in Iraq. But what if it happened here everyday? That might be the tragic catalyst that would finally inspire us to do something positive and constructive about the violence in our country and the rest of the world. It would be tempting to point to the shooter in Blacksburg and isolate him as the problem. But the problem and the solution don't lie outside of us. They answers are within. -- Original Source: keithboykin.com http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/2007/04/17/what_if_it_happ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0
Thoughts About Media Coverage of the Virginia Tech Tragedy
posted 5.01.07 Otto Wahl, Ph.D., University of Hartford The tragic death of 33 students at Virginia Tech has shocked and saddened us all. Given the mental health aspects of the situation, it is not surprising that there has been much in the coverage about mental illnesses and their treatment. Unfortunately, the articles and editorials that followed the shootings have often been troubling in what they convey to the public about mental illnesses and mental health interventions. One troubling aspect of the media coverage has been the frequent vilification and dehumanization of the troubled young man who perpetrated the killings. Appropriately sympathetic descriptions of the background and lives of the "32" victims were widespread, and such descriptions helped us to better appreciate the tragedy on a more personal level. However, descriptions of the 33rd person who died in the tragedy, Cho Seung-Hui, focused almost exclusively on his pathology, his anger, and his menacing manner. Some media sources characterized Cho as motivated by "meanness;" others labeled him as a "fiend," a "psychopath," or "just plain "evil." Such coverage ignored the fact that Cho's death—and much of his life—was also a tragedy. His alienation, isolation, anger, and ultimate suicide are probably not the life goals he set out for himself. Much of the media coverage did discuss Cho's mental health, but mostly without notable empathy for his difficulties. Related is the mistaken implication in coverage of Cho's actions that mental illness and violence are synonymous. The widespread images of Cho brandishing weapons epitomized the already prevalent public image of the "menacing madman," and that image was underscored further by the fear-inducing labels Cho was given in many media accounts, such as "maniac" and "psycho" and worse. Likewise, the repeated discussions of the need to protect the college community—and the larger community—from such individuals served to reinforce unwarranted public fears of people with mental illnesses. The vast majority of people with mental illnesses, including severe mental illnesses, are neither violent nor criminal. The vast majority of students on campus who are living with mental illnesses are not threatening others, but working and studying to make better lives for themselves. I saw little discussion of this in media coverage. The events at Virginia Tech were truly horrendous. The media, like the public, searched to make sense of the tragedy and to find clues as to how future tragedies could be prevented. However, there was a tendency to focus on mental illness as the sole or primary explanation for the horrific outcome at Virginia Tech. Many reporters and even mental health professionals seemed to commit what social scientists have dubbed the "fundamental attribution error." This term refers to our tendency to attribute the actions of others, particularly unacceptable actions, to their inner, psychological attributes and to neglect potential situational influences. If we succumb to this error and focus mainly on the possible internal causes of behavior, the mental health of Cho Seung-Hui in this case, we may overlook other potential contributors to the event and, thus, other potential and important avenues for prevention. Often overlooked, then, were questions about how we engage or do not engage students on our college campuses or how we do or do not integrate diverse students to better create a sense of community, questions about what gaps in understanding and education about cultural differences might have contributed to Cho's apparent isolation and to the ultimate outcome, and questions about the extent to which stigma and negative attitudes about mental health problems could have contributed to Cho's apparent reluctance to accept counseling assistance despite the recommendations of Virginia Tech faculty. Instead of looking at the factors above, many media reports implied—directly or indirectly—that the major preventive solution is the lessening of restrictions on involuntary hospitalization. After horrific events like the Virginia Tech deaths, it is easy to forget that the current criteria for involuntary psychiatric commitment result from a long history of indiscriminate and abusive use of forced hospitalization and from a belated recognition that the individual civil rights of people with mental illnesses need protection. Just as the tragic events of 9/11 should not have allowed us to dismantle the basic civil liberties on which our country is founded, a tragic event like Virginia Tech should not serve as justification for diminishing the hard won civil protections of the millions of people with mental illnesses. But it may, and some of the news coverage is suggesting that it should. Also, it is not clear that involuntary commitment for Cho would have been the appropriate solution. Coerced treatment may have poorer long term outcomes than voluntary treatment if it creates trauma and fuels antagonism and poorer treatment compliance. For a person like Cho, who already felt persecuted and angry, this may have been likely. So hospitalization might have only postponed the tragic outcome. Outpatient treatment may have had a better chance of succeeding in helping Cho and preventing the lethal outcome. In hindsight, we know it was not successful, but we do not know that involuntary hospitalization would have had more success. The events at Virginia Tech have led to calls for greater security on campuses and for a better ability of campus authorities to exclude people with serious mental illnesses from the campus. Again, this represents a troubling inclination to further restrict the rights and opportunities of people living with mental illnesses. Easier hospitalization and campus restrictions are not what is needed for preventing tragedies such as the one at Virginia Tech. Instead, we need better training of service providers to deal with individuals who are reluctant to accept treatment, and therapeutic alternatives that are more attractive, less aversive, and better funded. We also need reduced stigma for seeking and accepting treatment, along with greater outreach and prevention efforts. I do not mean to suggest that there was no sensitive and appropriate media coverage of the events. Many stories were sympathetic to the needs of troubled youth on campuses, urging improvements and cautioning against attempts to exclude students. Former Rosalynn Carter Journalism Fellow, John Head, for example, wrote, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, "A policy that punishes students for enduring emotional and mental disturbances will only discourage them from seeking help." Articles and editorials have called for expanded suicide prevention programs and improvements in culturally competent services, as well. An article in the Washington Post, by another former Carter Fellow, Shankar Vedantam looked "beyond the shooter," to consider social factors that may have contributed to the fatal outcome. And there did emerge a number a number of pieces that looked more fully and sympathetically at the life of Cho Seung-Hui and at his family's pain and suffering. Media coverage also brought to light the archaic and offensive language of the federal statutes for regulation of gun purchases. I am referring to the prohibition against selling guns to "mental defectives,' a category which, for the federal government, apparently includes persons with mental illnesses. I am amazed that such a reference to mental illness—language that was discarded decades ago because of its pejorative nature and its connection to eugenics and Nazi cleansing—could still be the chosen terminology in the laws of our country.I can only hope that the wide exposure of this language in the press may lead to sufficient embarrassment and/or outrage as to generate an appropriate updating. I am, however, cautiously optimistic. Despite the great deal of stigmatizing coverage that has surrounded the tragic loss of life at Virginia Tech, the discussions that are occurring have the potential to generate important changes. Chief among these are greater understanding of and improved responsiveness to mental health needs on campuses. I do not mean to suggest, as some media coverage has, that these are needed primarily to protect the student body from unstable shooters, but rather that they are needed so that universities can enhance their abilities to support the learning and accomplishment of all students, including the many who experience mental health problems. -- Archived with permission of the author. Original Source: MIWatch.org http://www.miwatch.org/Wahl.htm
After VaTech, violent creative writing raises concerns on campuses
By: Sean Moroney Posted: 5/17/07 Other than being two of the most-read playwrights in history, Sophocles and Shakespeare share another common thread-a knack for writing gruesome but also unforgettable scenes. Likewise, Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech shooter who was a senior majoring in English, graphically described murder and violence in two plays he wrote for a class in the fall of his senior year. One difference between the well-known playwrights and Cho, however, was that their words stayed on the stage and Cho's played out in real life. Since the Virginia Tech massacre April 16, critics have questioned whether university administrators and professors could have taken further steps to prevent the shooting. Specifically, they have focused on Cho's two plays-"Mr. Brownstone" and "Richard McBeef," in which a 13-year-old threatens to kill his stepfather. "There is that understood latitude in creative writing," Duke English Professor Deborah Pope wrote in an e-mail. "There has to be that room to reach deeply. Not least of all because some of the greatest writers we know have written about quite disturbing events and characters. Many of the Greek plays and Shakespeare, as just two examples, are full of gore." In the English department at Duke, students can take a number of courses that either integrate creative writing into the curriculum or focus solely on it. Pope, who teaches creative writing, said she is not aware of an official policy on regulating a student's creative writing. "I don't know how there could be," Pope said. "It must rest with a teacher's individual judgment." Creative writing in college is a delicate issue because professors oftentimes encourage students to express themselves freely in their writing but at the same time must recognize when highly imaginative writing signals problems in the personal lives of the student. "I read both of [Cho's] short plays. I was pretty horrified and disgusted because I hate violence," said senior and English major Stephen Lee. "I haven't written anything equally violent or disturbing." Lee said he sometimes feels self-conscious about sharing his writing that is particularly grotesque due to fear of how other students might react. He added, however, that his creative writing professors have never censored a student's work just because it was violent or disturbing. "At Duke, I have read some disturbing stories written by fellow students, but I've never felt remotely endangered because the author has always been able to explain and defend his or her creative choices," Lee wrote in an e-mail. A senior in Cho's playwrighting class, Steven Davis, told The New York Times that after reading Cho's play "Richard McBeef" one night, he turned to his roommate and said, "This is the kind of guy who is going to walk into a classroom and start shooting people." After noticing a pattern of odd behavior from Cho-which included taking pictures of women with his cell phone camera in a poetry class in his junior year and a taciturn personality, Lucinda Roy, chair of the English department and co-director of the creative writing program at Virginia Tech, began to tutor Cho privately. Roy and other professors took further steps to ensure that counseling was sought for Cho, who was ordered to attend a psychiatric facility in late 2005. But their actions were not enough to prevent the shooting. "Fortunately, I have never had to deal with writing that struck me as truly psychotic or sadistic," Pope said. "When I heard that the Virginia Tech's writing teacher, of all people, had raised red flags, my first reaction was, 'My god, it must have been something really, really, unsettling-it must have just been completely over the edge.'" English major Melanie Garcia, Trinity '07, said the way she approaches writing is to write about things that mean a lot to her. "By writing things down that are personal, I make them permanent-they become something outside of me," she said. "If it were a painful memory, it would not be as painful." -- Original Source: Duke Chronicle - May 17, 2007
ANOTHER INCONVENIENT TRUTH: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech
Bethany Gizzi and Christine Plumeri 26 Apr 2007 The tragedy at Virginia Tech on April 16th, 2007 is no doubt on many of our minds. We struggle with the impossible task of trying to understand how such a horrific act of violence could occur on a beautiful, thriving college campus. Some of us have to try to explain this to our young children. We turn to the media for information, for facts, evidence, and perhaps, an explanation for something that is so difficult for us to comprehend. As those who work in the media work tirelessly to gather information and share it with the public, we cannot help but notice that almost all of the attention thus far seems to be on individual, blame-centered explanations for why this troubled young man took his and 32 others' lives. Certainly, this is understandable and necessary to help us to make sense of such incredulous violence. Yet, we wonder why not also focus on the larger, cultural, macrolevel factors that are common denominators in our nation's acts of mass murder in the workplace and in educational institutions? We would like to raise our voices to encourage the media to follow one of the most important aspects of this story. One which can provide us with an understanding of this tragedy and a way in which we can create positive and necessary social change out of this tragic act. As professors of Sociology, we study and teach courses on Sex & Gender and Criminology. It is obvious to us that the time is now to face the issue of gender and gender based violence. This is not just a gun control or "hawk versus dove" debate and this is not just a woman's issue. To quote Jackson Katz, an anti-violence educator who writes and lectures on gendered violence, "we need to say this is a men's issue", too (www.jacksonkatz.com). In 2003, according the F.B.I.'s arrest-based Uniform Crime Reports, 90.1% of homicides were perpetrated by males and 77.5% of their victims were other males. The perpetrator of these violent acts at Virginia Tech was male. In fact, this crime is only the most recent of a long history of mass shootings committed by males in this country - many of them committed by young men and boys at educational institutions. You may recall the stories: 2 killed and 7 wounded by 16 year old Luke Woodham in Pearl, Mississippi in 1997; 3 killed and 5 wounded by 14 year old Michael Carneal in West Paducah, Kentucky in 1997; 5 killed and10 wounded by 13 year old Mitchell Johnson and 11 year old Andrew Golden in Jonesboro, Arkansas in 1998; 2 killed and 22 wounded by 15 year old Kip Kinkel in Springfield, Oregon in 1998; 15 killed and 23 wounded by 18 year old Eric Harris and 17 year old Dylan Klebold in Littleton, Colorado in 1999; 2 killed and 13 wounded by 15 year old Charles Andrew Williams in Santee, California in 2001; 2 killed by 15 year old John Jason McLaughlin in Cold Spring, Minnesota in 2003; 10 killed by 16 year old Jeff Weisse in Red Lake, Minnesota in 2005; 6 killed and 5 wounded in an Amish school house by 32 year old Carl Roberts in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania in 2006; 33 killed and 15 wounded by 23 year old Cho Seung-Hui in Blacksburg, Virginia in 2007. These are not the only stories of male-perpetrated gun violence, but those that received the most media coverage over that past decade. In the coverage of each of these stories, including the murders at Virginia Tech, the media has failed to appropriately address the fact that men and boys are committing these crimes. It is time for that to change. Addressing the issue of male-perpetrated violence is not about blaming men, nor is it about locating the cause of violence in a biological explanation of aggression, given that the rates and contexts of male violence vary significantly across cultures and among individual males within them. It is also not about expensive, band-aid solutions such as metal detectors and armed security, over long-term, meaningful societal transformation. Rather, we must address the ways in which we socialize our young boys in our culture. Masculinity becomes associated with dominance, aggression, power and violence and these characteristics are encouraged, accepted and perpetuated. We have to stop believing that "boys will be boys" who grow up to kill people with guns. Boys are taught, and they see, hear and live what they learn. If these crimes had all been committed by young women, we would no doubt be asking ourselves "why?" How could a young woman perpetuate such an act of horrible violence against someone else? It would be even more unthinkable than it already is. Yet current social trends show that we are increasingly socializing our girls into more traditionally masculine characteristics as they seek to gain power and equality in our patriarchal society. As long as masculinity, and more importantly power, is associated with aggression and violence, it may be just a matter of time before females start lashing out in similar mass, destructive ways. Well, we should be asking ourselves that same question now instead of ignoring the fact that these perpetrators are male. In doing so, we are accepting the association of aggression and violence with masculinity. That should be unacceptable to all of us - men and women. We must stop ignoring the importance of gender socialization and its strong, consistent correlations with many forms of violent crime. We owe it to our sons and daughters to have this conversation and to start changing the way we raise our young men. Bethany Gizzi & Christine Plumeri Instructors of Sociology Monroe Community College bgizzi (at) monroecc.edu cplumeri (at) monroecc.edu -- Original Source: http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/20291/index.php Licensed under Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication.
Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication
Korean church leaders caution against backlash after US shootings
News Brief By staff writers 21 Apr 2007 Korean and American Korean church leaders are calling for "healing, reconciliation and peace" amid concerns that the Virginia Tech shootings by a South Korean native could lead to a backlash against Koreans. "I was really shocked to hear that this senseless crime was committed by a Korean-immigrated student," said Bishop Kyung-Ha Shin, president of the Council of Bishops of the Korean Methodist Church. In a letter from Seoul sent on 18 April 2007, Bishop Shin offered condolences to the bereaved families and the American people while hoping "there will be no undesirable negative feeling and attitude toward Koreans." Meanwhile, in the United States, more than 250 leaders of the National Association of Korean American United Methodist Churches were holding their annual meeting 16-19 April in Chicago when the shooting occurred. As word of the shooter's identity spread, the mostly clergy participants began receiving calls from their home churches asking for guidance. "The whole community was in shock and did not know how to respond, but we prayed for the victims and their family members and the school and the community," said the Rev Keihwan Ryoo, editor of United Methodists in Service, who was reporting on the gathering on behalf of the Korean-language magazine published by United Methodist Communications. Several pastors received reports that Korean American students had been bullied in their mostly white schools as the week progressed, Ryoo said. The caucus held a memorial service for the shooting victims and released a pastoral letter. "We pray that the violence that has needlessly taken innocent lives does not escalate nor happen again," said the Rev Hoon Kyoung Lee, chairman of the association. "Furthermore, we are especially concerned that the immigrant community and the children of minorities may become targeted by anti-racial backlash because of this incident. "We pray that all of our friends and neighbors will support the Korean-American community in striving for healing, reconciliation and peace." The 16 April 2007 massacre in Blacksburg, Virginia, left 33 people dead, including the lone gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, a 23-year-old senior majoring in English literature. Born in South Korea, he moved to the United States in 1992 at age 8 and was raised in the suburbs of Washington DC, where his parents worked at a dry cleaner store. Authorities said Cho appeared to shoot his victims randomly. In a video made prior to the killings and sent to NBC-TV, he ranted about rich kids and portrayed himself as persecuted. Lee asked people throughout the church to prayer for the shooting victims and their families, the family and friends of Cho, and the minority and immigrant community in the United States. "We departed from this meeting with a heavy heart," Ryoo reported. "A lot of churches planned special memorial services over the weekend." Bishop Hee-Soo Jung, of the Northern Illinois Conference, said the church's American Korean community is "weeping and praying" with the rest of the world. He said grief and concern over such events cross all racial and ethnic lines. "We pray for our young people and those feeling a sense of vulnerability, isolation, insecurity and fear on their campuses, and even in their homes," Jung wrote in a pastoral letter from his Chicago office. "... I encourage each of us to offer the ministries of comfort, healing and love." [With grateful acknowledgments to the United Methodist Church News Service USA and reporter Marta W. Aldrich] -- Original Source: Ekklesia http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5109 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License
WCC leader backs calls for effective US firearms regulations
News Brief By staff writers 18 Apr 2007 World Council of Churches (WCC) general secretary the Rev Dr Samuel Kobia has expressed "deep sorrow" over "this new horror of random violence" that took place at Virginia Tech University on Monday 16 April 2007. To his prayers for the families and the wounded, he added international church concern for more effective regulation of firearms. "Churches around the world join churches and councils of churches in the US in sending sympathies to those who are suffering, and in upholding parishes in Virginia in their ministry during these difficult days", said Dr Kobia in a statement published yesterday. Dr Kobia affirmed that "In deference to those who have died and with concern for the future, we all must ask why such killings happen so easily. Why are these incidents repeated as if there are no remedies? "We are all Virginians in our sympathy, but many people around the world are also Virginians in their vulnerability to the misuse of unregulated guns", Kobia declared. "Wanton killings", "indiscriminate use of armed force" and "widespread availability of deadly weapons" are features of the Virginia tragedy but are also present daily in Darfur and in Iraq, he said. Dr Kobia called for "firm and appropriate controls" on the globalized trade in small arms. He notes, among other factors, that the "pro-gun position adopted by the US administration" has been "one of the major obstacles" to progress toward that goal. The World Council of Churches, which brings together Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and indigenous churches across the globe, has a longstanding concern for combating violence. The Decade to Overcome Violence and build a culture of peace has brought together church and civic groups. It has included a 'peace to the city' initiative which included action on gun crime and domestic attacks. -- Original Source: Ekklesia http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5069 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License.
Beauty and Depravity | eugene cho's blog [eugenecho.com] Like everyone else - here [Seattle], there [Virginia], West [United States, East [Korea], and everywhere, I am trying to make sense of something that is simply - senselesss. Personally, the emotions have been even more convoluted because I am Korean-American. I am a Korean immigrant [immigrated at the age of 6] and understand the immigrant experience; I am a Korean-American Immigrant Male [who even shares the same last name - 'C-H-O' - as the gunman]. I am a Christian pastor involved in the institution of Religion that Seung Hui Cho criticized and expressed disappointment. For these reasons, many have asked, called, IM'd, and emailed asking me to share some of my thoughts - as a person, a Christian, an immigrant, a pastor, but especially as a Korean-American man. I'm sharing some thoughts [some which are still in vomitaceous process] in hopes that we can dialogue here - that it may serve as part of the healing and redemptive process. Monday night was an incredibly eerie day for me. After watching the news with incredulity and horror, I posted a blog entry about the tragedy in Virginia Tech. About 9pm [PST], I began to literally have over hundred people instantaneously get to my blog in a span of two hours. Search Views | seung cho blog 18, cho virginia tech myspace 17, virginia tech shooting cho 17, cho 15, cho virginia tech 15, virginia tech cho 13, cho virginia 9, virginia tech student shooter Cho 9, virginia shooter cho myspace 8, Sung Cho Blacksburg 7, virginia tech blog cho 7, blog virginia tech 2, cho seung virginia tech shooting 2, Cho, Korean, Blacksburg 2CHO, virginia shooting korean 2, Virginia Tech Myspace Cho 2, Cho myspace virginia tech 2, Cho Seung virginia tech 2, virginia tech cho shooting 2, Myspace Cho Virginia Tech 2, "Cho" Blacksburg 2, viginia tech cho korea shooting 2, "Cho" virginia tech korea myspace 2, cho virginia tech shoot 2, korean virginia tech cho 2, pastoral health 2, quest eugene cho 2, cho virginia tech shooting 2, virginia cho 2 As I examined my dashboard through wordpress, it was fairly obvious to me that while the news wouldn't be shared to the larger world until the next morning, there was strong suspicion - perhaps through authorities or through some of the student body - that the gunman may have been someone named Seung [Hui] Cho. I was speechless, ashamed, angry, and afraid. [You can also add 'guilty' because of my selfishness. Like others, I felt "pathetic" in wishing the person wasn't Korean or Asian...I became more self-focused rather on mourning with those who have suffered in the tragedy]. Some vomitaceous thoughts, questions, and reflections: 1 We need to remember, foremost, that lives have been dramatically impacted. 33 people have died. 32 who were completely innocent. Each person that died or was severely injured has a name, a story, a family, a passion, a dream, and a life. Let's not forget that in the midst of the media frenzy. This is a must read. 2 It's clear that Seung Cho was unhealthy, unstable, disturbed, ill [schizophrenia?], angry, lost, and [place your words here]. But that's the only clear thing. I needed the turn the TV off because the 'stretching' for information, analysis, scrutiny, and answers to who, what, where, when, and why was overly speculative. Compare the reporting of Fox News and BBC News... While I understand the need for 'why,' we're simply not going to know the full picture. While Seung's action were horrible and evil [and premeditated], we must remind ourselves that he too is a human being - as difficult as that might be. Knowing some of the dynamics of the Asian/Korean culture and the synthesis of pain, guilt, and shame, I am sincerely worried for his family - particularly his parents. They, too, are victims in this story. Update: read the statement issued by Sun Kyung Cho and her family. One thing that the media won't touch is the simple and painful matter: Evil exists in our world. There is a spiritual dimension that the media won't discuss but the church must engage. As much as we seek to create a perfect world [and it is a worthwhile pursuit], this will not be the first nor will it be the first murder or tragedy. 3 why do the media keep calling him 'cho'? he has a first name... maybe it's me, but i'm tired of hearing and reading my last name. couple folks actually emailed me [from other parts of the country] through the blog to ask if i'm related to seung. 4 Will there be racial backlash? Do Asians and Koreans need to fear? On the most part, I do not believe there will be overt backlash but there are always going to be pockets of people that will be stupid and do stupid things. It would be nonsenical for people to associate this violent act to Koreans or Asians simply because of Seung Hui Cho's ethnicity. In that same vein, it would have been preposterous and unjust for us to place blame on African-Americans for the actions of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo in the 'Beltway Sniper attacks' of 2002 or to ask White Americans to share blame with Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma bombings of 1995. But the question must be asked. How is the media influencing the construct of the national consciousness? That's a worthwhile question for me. In the early reporting, I was perturbed that Seung was being referred to as 'the Asian killer' and 'the Korean killer.' While he is Asian and Korean, the media needs to be more responsible in their sensational reporting. What do you think? As one commenter replied in an earlier posting: i definitely wish/ hope that most would not see the shooter as representative of all asians, but in america, if the person in question is not a white, heterosexual, protestant, middle class, educated man, then their race, creed and color seems to always be part of the equation. he has been marked as the resident alien from abroad who came into our land and terrorized us, and with our heightened fear of the other, this situation seems to be full of potential for type casting and APIA caricatures. and i think if these kinds of caricatures flourish (as they did with mid-easterners post 9/11), then it's not unreasonable to fear violent reprisal. and so while i certainly hope that people can view the event as isolated, i know that it's very difficult for our culture to separate media representations of people groups from 'reality.' 5 Why are Koreans/Asians afraid of backlash? My hope is that in the midst of this tragedy, a small glimpse will be captured of the Asian-American [immigrant] experience. Asians and particularly, Korean-Americans are xenophobic. Historically, Koreans have been invaded, pillaged, and exploited...one of the foremost Korean historians Ki-Baek Lee refers to Korea as "the prostitute of Asia." From an immigrant experience, two very formative events in modern Asian American history impact our responses as Asian-Americans - particularly those who are older. In my opinion, the most significant event in modern Asian-American history is the story of Vincent Chin - a Chinese American man beaten to death by a baseball bat by two white auto industry workers - outside of a club during his bachelor party. Even worse, the white men were acquitted. For Korean Americans, the most significant event in their modern history is the LA riots and specifically, Sai-I-Gu (4/29). The United States is an incredible country and I am a proud citizen of this country; but it's not a perfect country and while I believe there won't be an overt backlash, I do worry how it will impact the individual and larger [White] collective view of Asian-Americans, Korean-Americans, "foreigners," "immigrants" and such. We should agree: if one Asian or Korean is bullied as a result of this, it's one too many. If one woman is bullied because of her gender, it's one too many. If one gay person is bullied because of their orientation, it's one too many. 6 As we mourn for those impacted, we must ask the question, "Why am I mourning?" Are Korean-Americans and Asian-Americans mourning because the perpetrator was Korean [because of shame and/or fear] or because of the larger tragedy? Are we mourning because of the 1 or are we mourning because of the 32? For Koreans, the answer is likely both. We are mourning because of the 33. This is important to understand. To be Korean - culturally - is to be communal. Koreans are interconnected in a communal culture. We rejoice and mourn with the successes and failures of our fellow Koreans or Korean-Americans. We cling and rejoice with individuals like James Sun [The Apprentice], Paul Kim [American Idol], Michelle Wie [LPGA golfer], Yul Kwon [Survivor: Cook's Island], Hines Ward [NFL Football], and Yunjin Kim [ABC's Lost]. And because we are a communal culture - interconnected - not only as Koreans but also within our KA immigrant experience, we mourn and feel deep pain and shame over Seung Hui Cho. For the larger Anglo worldview, the question must also be asked: Is Seung Hui Cho an "Asian Killer" or "the Korean Killer" or is he a Korean-American [emphasis added] or an American that committed an evil crime? What is the demarcation of what it means to be an American? He immigrated at the age of 8; grew up in Detroit; moved to the suburbs of Washington DC; educated in the States; and was an English major in Virginia Tech. A great definition of community (Romans 12:15) is when [or if] we choose to "mourn with those who mourn and rejoice with those who rejoice." As Asian-Americans, we must mourn with those who mourn not simply because an Asian was involved in the crime, but because our larger community - our country - is in mourning. This is also our country, our people, our college community...this can't be their tragedy. this is [must be] our shared tragedy. 7 Why are we so violent as Americans? Should we discuss gun control here? Where do we start? What is our Christian response? Why are so many Christians so adamant about the right to bear arms? Where is that found in the Scriptures? I can cite tons of places about mercy, humility, justice, the oppressed, the poor, the widows...but why such obsession with arms and yet, such silence on the items listed above? How are we as Christians and as consumers feeding the violence acceptance of our culture? Insert pop culture here. 8 The lives of those who have perished must be remembered, cherished and celebrated. Period. But today alone, nearly 200 people were killed in Bahgdad. It is estimated that approximately 30,000 children will die today because of poverty [according to UNICEF]. That's 210,000 children this week; a little under 11 million children [five and under] each year. While this is a horrible tragedy, [one life lost - is one too many] we must commit ourselves to the elevation of the sanctity of life. each person - with a name, a story, a family, a dream, a beauty... Let's remain in prayer for those impacted in this shared tragedy; let's mourn with those who mourn; hope together; and work - whatever faith, ethnicity, country, political affiliation - for the shared responsibility of being a good neighbor. _________ One last note. As a Korean-American Male Cho Immigrant Christian Pastor, I do have another response: God is love. Because He is Love, He created order out of chaos. His purpose was love and shalom. We were created for beauty - created in the image of God. Shalom was violated and marred. Our image tainted and cracked. Jesus came to redeem and restore. Invitation is extended to all - including the lonely, the outcast, the marginalized, the rich, the debaucherized, and such. And lest we forget or bathe in our righteousness, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. We are confronted by our depravity. We all need God and thanks be to God, the Lord is not far. He is near. This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 18th, 2007 -- Archived with permission of the author. Original Source: Beauty and Depravity | eugene cho's blog [eugenecho.com] http://eugenecho.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/making-sense-of-virginia-tech/
Recorded Thursday, April 19 (24 MB MP3) We've decided to scrap tonight's planned show (about language post-Imus) in favor of a show about the visual reverberations of the Virginia Tech shooting. Our central prod came from the trusty barthjg, who wrote: I'll pitch a show about Instant Symbols and Icons, based on the Virgina Tech killings. The image of Cho Seung-Hui brazenly holding two handguns, arms outstretched will soon reach iconic status, to be mashed up and shared in all sorts of ways-just like the Abu gharib photos and Che' and everything else that has appeared on t-shirts and ads. How many You Tube videos created in the wake of the shootings? music tributes. every incident enters the mosh pit of creative repurposing. Who is going to write the music, the movie...track every 6 months how pieces of this tragedy filter thru global culture. Watch someone stage the two crazy plays this guy wrote for the drama class he is in. (you can find them on aol.com...i read them last night) barthjg, in a show suggestion to Open Source, April 19, 2007 We're following his lead, and asking: Is there anything to learn about the way we use new technologies in this first mass-murder made, as it were, for YouTube? Are mashups and tributes a form of digital catharsis, a sort of artistic safety valve? Is there a cross-over point where they become pure exploitation, or worse? And what, exactly, is new here? Besides the zeros and the ones, and the ease of dissemination and reconfiguration, is there a difference between a 19th-century suicide note and a 21st-century QuickTime movie? Siva Vaidhyanathan Assistant Professor of Culture and Communication, NYU Blogger, SABEROCRACY.NET Keith Jenkins Picture Editor, The Washington Post Flickr blogger, Burnt Pixel Blogger, Good Reputation Sleeping Founder of the Post's Blog City feature James Der Derian Director of the Global Security and Global Media Project at The Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University Author of Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment Network Extra Credit Reading Excerpts from the original footage sent by Cho Seung-Hui to NBC on the day of the shootings (via YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbDl5_qAj04 anditgoeslike, 2007-4-19, anditgoeslike's LiveJournal: "These pictures of Cho failed to evoke the kind of emotional reaction that a real villain should. I'm sure it would be different if he were actually holding that gun to my head and not to a digital camera with the self-timer innocuously ticking away. I don't know, though. I just imagined him going in front of the mirror and experimenting with various outfits and poses." ntcoolfool, Update, Bryce's Journal, April 16, 2007: "I cannot decide if I should join and get the most up to date information or not. I think when I do, it will then hit me. I must avoid it at all costs. The list still awaits- and several friends have remained silent on facebook updates. Could it be them?" Scottish Right, Old Media Tries To Tarnish New Media With Virginia Tech Massacre, Scottish Right, April 19, 2007: "A madman campus killer making a video and shipping it to a media outlet has absolutely nothing to do with "citizen journalism" or "new media." A sicko video made with a camcorder and sent to NBC is hardly any different than an elaborate suicide note being written and mailed to a media outlet." Momus, The problem lays a floral wreath at the grave of the problem, Click Opera, April 17, 2007: "There, visually represented, is the same horror we heard on the cell phone video footage students recorded. The grim exterior of the building, and that seemingly endless banging. Horror beyond all the platitudes. Horror intimately tied to the braying donkey of the Absurd, the pragmatic, the routine, the logistical — what Hannah Arendt called the banality of evil." nikolrb, in a comment on Open Source, April 19, 2007: "It seems part of this discussion is not about if the images are more prevalent, I don't think they are especially, but how quickly we are digesting and regurgitating and socially processing them. Think of all the movies, plays, songs, etc. made referring to Jeffrey Dahmer, the Zodiac Killer, Son of Sam killings, Jack the Ripper, etc. The entertainment/news cycle seems to be converging (in more arenas than just this.)" Dan Gilmor, Virginia Tech: How Media Are Evolving, Center for Citizen Media Blog, April 17, 2007: "Once again, horror has given us a glimpse of our media future: simultaneously conversational and distributed, mass and personal." Sky News, Copycat: Killer Re-Enacted Violent Film, Sky News, April 19, 2007: "Officers believe he repeatedly watched Oldboy as part of his preparation for the killing spree." -- Archived with permission of the producers. Original Source: http://www.radioopensource.org/re-imaging-violence/
David Miller Senior Producer, Open Source www.radioopensource.org 617.497.8096 david@radioopensource.org
EDITORIAL Published Apr 17, 2007 11:36 PM Yet another rampage has occurred at a school, this time leaving 33 people dead at Virginia Tech—the worst such incident ever at a U.S. college campus. The news media seem stunned and surprised, yet their coverage sounds so similar to the stories about Columbine eight years ago. They dwell on the personality of the young man the police say did the shooting, before killing himself. They talk about him being a "loner," depressed, perhaps angry at women. But aren't there lonely and depressed people all over the world? Many countries have high suicide rates. Why is it that here some become mass murderers? The U.S. is the world leader in seemingly random acts of violence by individuals. Why? President George W. Bush rushed to Virginia to speak at a large convocation the day after the killings and tried to set the tone for what could be said about them. "It's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering," he said. Don't ask why, don't try to understand. It makes no sense. "Have faith" instead, was Bush's message. But there ARE reasons these things happen here, and they are pretty clear to the rest of the world. It's just in the United States that no one is supposed to talk about the reasons. What distinguishes this country from the rest of the world? It is neither the most affluent nor the poorest. It is neither the most secular nor the most religious. It is not the most culturally homogeneous nor is it the most diverse. But in one area, it stands virtually alone. It has the biggest arsenal of high-tech weaponry in the world, way surpassing every other country. It has military bases spread all over; most countries have no troops outside their borders. It is conducting two hot wars at the moment, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has sent hundreds of thousands of troops abroad over the last few years. Every day, the public here is supposed to identify with soldiers who burst into homes in Baghdad, round up the people and take them away for "interrogation"—which everyone knows now can mean torture and indefinite detainment. It also sends heavily armed "special ops" on secret missions to countless other countries, like the ones who just facilitated the invasion and bombing of Somalia, or the ones who have been trying to stir up opposition in Iran. This is documented in the news media. The immense brutality of these colonial wars, as well as earlier ones, is praised from the White House on down as the best, the ONLY way to achieve what the political leaders and their influential, rich backers decide is necessary to protect their world empire. Do lots of people get killed? "Stuff happens," said former war secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Collateral damage," says the Pentagon. At home, the U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Over 2 million people are locked up in the prison system each year, most of them people of color. When commercial armed security guards are also taken into consideration, the U.S. has millions of employees who use guns and other coercive paraphernalia in their jobs. In the final analysis, the military and the police—the "armed bodies of men," as Marxists used to define them before women were added to their ranks—exist to perpetuate and protect this present unjust system of capitalist inequality, where a few can claim personal ownership over a vast economy built by the sweat and blood of hundreds of millions of workers. And the more divided, the more polarized the society becomes, the higher the level of coercion and violence. Assault weapons are now everywhere in this society, as are Tasers, handcuffs, clubs and tear gas. They most often start out in the hands of the police, the military and other agents of the state, and can then turn up anywhere. Violence is a big money maker in the mass culture. Television, films, pulp novels, Internet sites, video games—all dwell on "sociopaths" while glorifying the state's use of violence, often supplemented by a lone vigilante. By the time children reach their teens, they have already seen thousands of murders and killings on television. And these days even more suspense is added in countless programs that involve stalking and terror against women—and increasingly children. As the Duke rape case and so many "escort service" ads show, women of color are particularly subject to exploitation and have little recourse to any justice. And as the murders along the border show, immigrants of color are fair game for racist killers. The social soil of capitalism can alienate and enrage an unstable and miserable person who should be getting help but can't find it. If, as reports are saying, the young man accused of these killings was on anti-depressant medication, it is all the more evidence that, at a time when hospitals are closing and health care is unavailable for tens of millions, treating mental health problems requires more from society than just prescribing dubious chemicals. Many liberal commentators are taking this occasion to renew the demand for tougher gun laws. Yes, assault weapons are horrible, but so are bunker buster bombs, helicopters that fire thousands of rounds a minute, and the ultimate—nuclear weapons. Disarming the people is not the answer, especially when the capitalist state is armed to the teeth and uses brutality and coercion daily. The best antidote to these tragedies is to build a movement for profound social change, for replacing capitalism with socialism, so that people's energies can be directed at solving the great problems depressing so much of humanity today, whether they be wars or global climate change or the loneliness of the dog-eat-dog society. -- Copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011 Email: ww@workers.org Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php -- Original Source: http://www.workers.org/2007/editorials/virginia-tech-0426/
Copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Media Beat (4/19/07) By Norman Solomon Many days after the mass killings at Virginia Tech, grisly stories about the tragedy still dominated front pages and cable television. News of carnage on a vastly larger scale -- the war in Iraq -- ebbs and flows. The overall coverage of lethal violence, at home and far away, reflects the chronic evasions of the American media establishment. In the world of U.S. mainline journalism, the boilerplate legitimacy of official American violence overseas is a routine assumption. "The first task of the occupation remains the first task of government: to establish a monopoly on violence," George Will wrote on April 7, 2004, in the Washington Post. But three years later, his Newsweek column laments: "Vietnam produced an antiwar movement in America; Iraq has produced an antiwar America." Current polls and public discourse -- in spite of media inclinations to tamp down authentic anger at the war -- do reflect an "antiwar America" of sorts. So, why is the ghastly war effort continuing unabated? A big factor is the undue respect that's reserved for American warriors in American society. When a mentally unstable person goes on a shooting rampage in the United States, no one questions that such actions are intrinsically, fundamentally and absolutely wrong. The media condemnation is 100 percent. However -- even after four years of a U.S. war in Iraq that has been increasingly deplored by the American public -- the standard violence directed from the Pentagon does not undergo much critical scrutiny from American journalists. The president's war policies may come under withering media fire, but the daily activities of the U.S. armed forces are subjected to scant moral condemnation. Yet, under orders from the top, they routinely continue to inflict -- or serve as a catalyst for -- violence far more extensive than the shooting sprees that turned a placid Virginia campus into a slaughterhouse. News outlets in the United States combine the totally proper condemnation of killing at home with a notably different affect toward the methodical killing abroad that is funded by the U.S. Treasury. We often read, see and hear explicit media commendations that praise as heroic the Americans in uniform who are trying to kill, and to avoid being killed, in Afghanistan and Iraq. In recent decades, the trends of war have been clear. A majority of the dead -- estimated at 75 to 90 percent -- are civilians. They are no less innocent than the more than 30 people who suddenly died from gunshots at Virginia Tech. It would be inaccurate to say that the bulk of U.S. media's coverage accepts war launched from Washington. The media system of the USA does much more than accept -- it embraces the high-tech violence under the Pentagon's aegis. Key reasons are cultural, economic and political. We grew up with -- and continue to see -- countless movies and TV programs showing how certain people with a handgun, a machine gun or missiles are able to set wrongs right with sufficiently deft and destructive violence. The annual reports of large, medium and small companies boast that the U.S. Defense Department is a lucrative customer with more and more to spend on their wares for war. And the scope of political discourse, reinforced by major news outlets, ordinarily remains narrow enough to dodge the huge differences between "defense spending" and "military spending." More broadly, the big media rarely explore the terrain of basic moral challenges to the warfare state. Everyone who isn't deranged can agree that what happened on April 16, 2007, at the campus of Virginia Tech was an abomination. It came about because of an individual's madness. We must reject it without the slightest equivocation. And we do. But the media baseline is to glorify the U.S. military -- yesterday, today and tomorrow -- bringing so much bloodshed to Iraq. The social dynamics in our own midst, fueling the war effort, are spared tough scrutiny. We're constantly encouraged to go along, avidly or passively. Yet George Will has it wrong. The first task of government should not be "to establish a monopoly on violence." Government should work to prevent violence -- including its own. -- Original Source: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3088 Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0
Adam Roberts / The Metropolis Times (Blog) Tuesday, April 17, 2007 "There is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre." - Kurt Vonnegut I don't really want to write this blog. I wanted to just take a few days off and give condolences to the victims at Virginia Tech. But before the bodies have even been identified, the media has already started playing the blame game. Apparently, if we had banned Hollywood, Nintendo and guns, this wouldn't have happened. I feel compelled to counter their bullshit. It makes me very angry when moralists so brazenly exploit a tragedy like this. I can't do anything about the murders, I can't stop people from trivializing deaths by turning them into moral panics, but maybe if I channel my anger into blogging, I can convince at least a few readers to pause before surrendering freedoms. Blaming guns is just stupid. Guns were already banned on campus. The gun ban didn't work. Last year, the State of Virginia dismissed a bill that would have allowed law-abiding students with a concealed-carry permit to bring their guns on campus, just as they are allowed to bring them anywhere else in the state. It was struck down. Its insensitive to say, but if just one of those hundreds of students had a single gun, more people would be alive today. "Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. 'I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.'" CNN Headline Prime kept showing movie posters for Grindhouse while Nancy Grace's substitute was blaming media violence. Apparently, the Tarrantino/Rodriguez double-feature is going to be turned into the next Matrix by the media. (Marilyn Manson-blaming is out of style) I've already heard the Super Columbine RPG referenced on both Fox News and CNN Headline News, even though there is absolutely no reason to suggest that the killer even knew about the game, and the 'game' is an anti-violent interactive documentary. I remember coming home from seeing Grindhouse with a bunch of friends, and talking about how awesome the car battles were. We passed a real-life wreck on the freeway - the tone immediately changed and we all expressed sadness and hoped that no one was killed. There was no desensitization. It is true that a small number of criticized studies have found links between exposure to media violence and aggression, especially in children. However, there has never been a study that showed exposure to media violence changed people into the type that commit real-life violent crimes. In fact, there is probably a cathartic effect - violence in video games helps quell natural violent tendencies. Nevertheless, violence in the media can sometimes inspire real-life violence. Its called the "Copycat Effect." 19th Century terrorists called it "Propaganda of the Deed," modern terrorist fighters call it "fourth generation warfare." Simply put, alienated young male sees an example of how a violent death made someone infamous and important. Alienated young male is evil, depressed and angry enough to place his own lust for importance over his own life and the lives of others. So alienated young male becomes an anarchist, neo-Nazi or Mujahideen and plots a crime that he's sure will get him attention in the newspapers. Historical examples are well-documented. Read Michael Hammerschlag's essay. "The 1774 Goethe book The Sorrows of Young Werther caused so many copycat suicides of lovelorn young men who dressed alike and shot themselves at the same time at their writing desk- straight from the story- that it was banned in Germany, Italy and Denmark." Others include Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, Stephen King's novel Rage, Scorsese's Taxi Driver and, more than any other, the Zapruder film. We don't know anything about the shooter yet, but it seems obvious that this was a Columbine-copycat. At this time every year, somewhere in the country, kids get caught planning a Columbine-style attack. This Virginia Tech terrorist was probably trying to outdo the Columbine murderers. The Columbine massacre occurred on April 20th - this Friday. Although this is also Hitler's birthday, the murderers' videos indicate that the attack was originally scheduled for April 19th - the same day at the Oklahoma City attack, which, according to their videos, the Columbine terrorists hoped to outdo. The Oklahoma City bombing of course, was scheduled for April 19th in order to avenge Janet Reno's misdeeds in the Waco disaster. The shooter's actions demonstrate advance planning. He didn't get spurned by his girlfriend and suddenly decide to go on a rampage - although a domestic dispute could have pushed the massacre up a few days. This is all just speculation. If the terrorist turns out to be an exchange student from overseas, he might not have been able to appreciate the significance of Columbine in our generation's psyche, and the timing could be coincidental. People need someone to blame - the police, Hollywood, the NRA, our "culture of violence" - anyone. It is almost incomprehensible that tragedies of this magnitude can happen for no good reason at all. -- Original Source: http://themetropolistimes.blogspirit.com/free_markets/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0.
Why must we pay the price For others sins and vice? As I lay dying here, I cry. I wonder, Why, why, why? ~Joseph M. Skipsey, April 23rd, 2007 Of Shooters and Schools Can video games make kids more violent? A new study employing state-of-the-art brain-scanning technology says that the answer may be yes. Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal - and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention. Does this mean that your teenager will feel an uncontrollable urge to go on a shooting rampage after playing "Call of Duty?" -Excerpt Taken from the MSNBC On the Level article, "Does game violence make teens aggressive?" It's the same tired old stories, over and over. These are but entertainment, without meaning. So, they make you more violent? No, I believe the article is suggesting that playing violent video games simply makes you more more "emotionally aroused." You can't blame games, the ESRB was put there for a reason. If you're unaware that video games are under a strict ratings system, you don't deserve to speak on such an issue. Movies don't have anything on the incredible vista of the ESRB. You can't find a medium of entertainment with a more defined set of guidelines than the ESRB, and the ratings are there for a reason, and deserve enforcement. Pardon me, but just because you can scan and find emotional arousal, does that mean positive emotion? Negative emotion? Neutral emotion? What exactly does this arousal mean? Until it can be discerned, all these statements are inaccurate. You need to prove then, that emotion is the link. Or, is it? After all, these killers are described as being cold and emotionless, right? What makes people do the violent acts in the first place? So far, most of these cases have shown mental illness, rage/anger issues, hate, race, and of course, suffering. Where are the cases of sane, rational, normal individuals playing these games and deciding to go kill people? None. All the school shootings? Most were angry youth, youth with guns, youth who were outsiders, the weak, the defenceless, the bullied. Not a single average Joe picking up a gun after a refreshing game of "Kill People" and blowing away innocents. What we fail to see is an actual connection between motive and games. I see motive in one way, and games in another, because they are NOT the SAME! There are very well-defined lines between motive and what someone does in their spare time. You see, when it comes down to it, you need motive to commit, and without a motive, there is no crime. Motives like, oh say: Abuse by parents, abuse by peers, bullying, loneliness, delusions, hatred, religious beliefs, monetary issues, and many more. What needs to be examined is the link between society and killers like this. What makes these people? Look, and you shall find, and it will surprise me not, but shock you beyond your comfortable world of minor tragedy. The breakdown in society comes not from video games, but from the way we treat some people in it. No one can imagine what horrors some have gone through. I have lived through what I can only describe as sheer torture, for a lack of wanting to dredge up the painful memories. I have come through, and come through well, and I am now working on becoming someone to change the ways these things go about. "Boys will be boys." A bitter, and cruel memory of a tear cried long ago. I came through my own trial that was childhood, and emerged matured beyond my chronological age. I have stared a coming death in the eyes, and welcomed it with relief. Never does one grow so quickly than when faced with their own life, about to be snuffed out. But I did not die, thanks to one boy who saw others throw me into a dumpster like so much trash, unable to move my arms from the beating they gave me first, bare seconds before a garbage truck came by to collect the garbage, to compact it... and me. One boy, who defied apathy, and saved my life. Live through the worst pain you could ever feel, for six years, alone, different, and scared, then claim that "Boys will be Boys." For some, the burden warped them, destroyed them, and turned them into beasts, murderous and violent. Killers. But, thanks to several factors, including loving, caring parents, kind teachers, books, and counselling, I stayed human. It's an odd feeling, to know you have lived through what broke others, what turned them into bitter, meek, but ever defiant individuals, right down to when they killed others and then themselves. It's hard to take when others blame playthings, hobbies, toys, and useless, un-important junk and lay the cause of guilt onto simple objects. Hard to take, to know that someone spent their life in pain, ends it, and yes, they made a bad choice, but it was also a lesson. One which went ignored. Rather than try to fix what is broken, we find ways to avoid examining it. It's hard to believe, that when a young man kills his peers, takes his life, and writes in a note left in his house about just how horrible a life it was, that others simply dismiss it as vanity, preening, a bid for publicity, rather than take in stride that there is a problem in the echelons of societal form. No one understands them. And that's one of the worst parts. I am alive. I am well. I live my life, and rejoice in the pleasures of taking breath, looking at the natural beauty of the world around me, the cool caress of the wind on my face, with the glow of the sun. I live content, confident in a future, bright in possibilities. But I will always remember what it took to make me see the way I do, to have the very thing that makes me different, and the humiliation and indignities I lived through. But the past is the past, and I look to the future, looking to speak, be heard, and change the system that nearly destroyed me, the system that is supported by the strong, the system that propagates stereotypes, and the system that creates the very things it fears most. I lost my childhood when I was but six. I grew up too fast, in a hard system, and have learned some very hard lessons. These lessons have taught me what you're still struggling to comprehend. There is no deep mystery to why the school shooters do this. It is simply misguided vengeance, striking against what they feel is the cause of their misery. Their school, their peers, and themselves. They hate their existence, and others for what they did to make their existence the kind they hated. Therefore, they attack both at the same time, and martyr themselves to their ideas of justice, of vengeance, and of retribution. They do it for themselves, for other victims, for the weak, the defenseless, whatever they want to. Because they are without hope. They are without pity, for they have received none. They have no mercy or regret, as they have learned from those who showed them nought. Their consciences are but husks, destroyed by oppression and injustice. They looked into others eyes as they were hurt, as they were abused, in pain, and all they saw were the malice of their attackers, and the apathy of the crowd, staring into their eyes, and seeing nothing. They have walked where few have dared to tread, but where several are forced to walk. Alone, feeling only the worst things, falling into darkness, with healthy shoves from ignorant and callous peers. This is why. This is what no one will say. This is not your pretty glossy CNN coverage, not your heartening fiction of fantasy, nor your peppy college psychology lecture. This is hard, gritty truth, this is a revelation of knowledge, and a desperate cry to end the pain, the bloodshed, the sorrow. Kind of sad, don't you think, how a 17 year old just told you exactly what countless people have been searching for. The answers to why School Shooters do what they're named for. And do you know what the saddest part will be? When this goes ignored, because this couldn't possibly be it. And I will watch and cry, as more and more people die while we look for the answer that is right in front of our noses, as we assign blame to scapegoats, and as we lower the bodies of innocents, and heroes into the ground. -- Author's Comments I hate the way the world is working these days. All violence and bloodshed, killers and crazies, all over school shootings. The latest Tragedy is now becoming a Travesty, and all we can seem to do is blame peripherals. Monsters aren't born; They're created. -- Original submitted to deviantart.com on April 23, 2007: href="http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53886930/">http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53886930/ Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5