Adrian Hong (someone you will hear more from in the future) has a lot of smart stuff to say about the Cho shootings and the Korean (and Korean-American) reaction to them.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
31 Comments
Outstanding piece. Thanks for linking that, Andy.
I’m utterly confused here. So is Cho an American citizen or not? The American media have clearly portrayed him as a South Korean national. But, Ms. Hong states…
“Further, it is inappropriate for the Korean ambassador to the United States to apologize on behalf of Korean Americans and speak of the need to work toward being accepted as a “worthwhile minority” in this nation. While the Korean ambassador represents the interests of Korean nationals in the United States, and the interests of the Republic of Korea, he does not speak for naturalized Koreans here.”
So is he a naturalized citizen of the US? Or a South Korean citizen? I know for a fact that you cannot be a dual citizen of South Korea and the US.
It is my understanding that Cho was a legal perminant resident. Basically, he was a South Korean citizen who could live in America for as long as he liked.
BTW, I think I will have similar status in Korea in about 5 years as long as my wife doesn’t dump me.
I read that as Hong referring not to Cho, but the Ambassador’s remarks as being intended to serve as an apology on behalf of _all_ ethnic Koreans, including those who are American citizens.
Hong seems to be saying that the Korean ambassador does not represent American citizens of Korean descent and hence should not apologize on their behalf.
Strange piece that is not altogether convincing. Hong seems to want to get K-As out of the Korean culture of victimization, but does so by wrapping them in the all to fashionable shroud of America’s own peculiar culture of victimization. At the same time, he doesn’t seem to want to let go of the pathetic self-affirming aspects of Koren self-victimization by rejecting Korean attempts to co-optively assimilate the Hines Wards, Michelle Wies, etc. C+
Cho was not a US citizen, and I think Hong was referring to how the ambassador seemed to be apologizing on behalf of Korean-Americans and to lecture Korean-Americans about the need to work harder for acceptance.
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe the ambassador—technically speaking—did apologize on behalf of Korean-Americans, although given the rest of his speech (or at least as it was quoted in the JoongAng), I could see how someone might think he did:
Overall, however, I’d have to agree with Hong that the ambassador’s address was inappropriate, both in terms of content and audience.
Okay, thanks for the clarification, Robert and Dogbertt. Upon reading it again, I can see that she meant that the ambassador does not not speak for the community of naturalized Korean-Americans. A subtle distinction, but a distinction nevertheless.
But what we have to remember is that such distinctions are probably almost irrelevant in the minds of most Koreans. (And I don’t mean gyopo here). Or in the minds of most Americans, for that matter. Even if Cho had become a naturalized citizen like his sister, (she works for the State department and from all ccounts is a US citizen), I’m not sure how different the reaction from Korea would have been. And after all the hoopla made over Hines Ward in Korea, would it not have been truly inhuman for the collective Korean psyche to not feel some sense of shame and responsibility for this Cho monster?
I, too, shuddered at the collective hypocrisy of Korea the nation over the Hines Ward phenomenon. Had Hines Ward grown up in Korea, well, none of you need to be told as to how a difficult life he would have faced. But what I am saying is that once Korea accepted Hines Ward as its own and celebrated his athletic achievements, it would have been utterly despicable for Korea to completely disown itself from the actions of Cho. For what it’s worth, Korea as a collective entity is at least being consistent.
“Further, it is inappropriate for the Korean ambassador to the United States to apologize on behalf of Korean Americans and speak of the need to work toward being accepted as a “worthwhile minority” in this nation. While the Korean ambassador represents the interests of Korean nationals in the United States, and the interests of the Republic of Korea, he does not speak for naturalized Koreans here.”
In other words, the South Korean government doesn’t care if Korean Americans suffer as a result of the apology. The only thing it cares about is protecting its own interests.
[DELETED for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) off topic
(2) personal attack
(3) used inappropriate language or tone
(4) ongoing personal conflict
(5) took issue with commenter (qualifications, etc) instead of actual comment content
(6) quotes rumor in a manner that is inflammatory (regarding race, etc)
(7) was reaction to any of the above
NOTE:
(A) Repeatedly responding (6) to inappropriate comments is no less grounds for banning.
(b) We're sorry if a few comments are being deleted on accident as we attempt to weed out a recent series of inappropriate comments. Our intention is to err on the side of leniency, as comments that are borderline should not hurt the comment section atmosphere if they are responded to in a deliberately appropriate manner. However, one way to avoid having a well-intended comment be deleted in the course of a cleanup action is to consciously make sure it does not push the limits of what can be seen as appropriate.
(C) Take into account that some comments deemed appropriate may address comments deleted for inappropriate language.
(D) Responses to this moderation action are off topic if made in this comment section.]
[DELETED for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) off topic
(2) personal attack
(3) used inappropriate language or tone
(4) ongoing personal conflict
(5) took issue with commenter (qualifications, etc) instead of actual comment content
(6) quotes rumor in a manner that is inflammatory (regarding race, etc)
(7) was reaction to any of the above
NOTE:
(A) Repeatedly responding (6) to inappropriate comments is no less grounds for banning.
(b) We're sorry if a few comments are being deleted on accident as we attempt to weed out a recent series of inappropriate comments. Our intention is to err on the side of leniency, as comments that are borderline should not hurt the comment section atmosphere if they are responded to in a deliberately appropriate manner. However, one way to avoid having a well-intended comment be deleted in the course of a cleanup action is to consciously make sure it does not push the limits of what can be seen as appropriate.
(C) Take into account that some comments deemed appropriate may address comments deleted for inappropriate language.
(D) Responses to this moderation action are off topic if made in this comment section.]
[DELETED for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) off topic
(2) personal attack
(3) used inappropriate language or tone
(4) ongoing personal conflict
(5) took issue with commenter (qualifications, etc) instead of actual comment content
(6) quotes rumor in a manner that is inflammatory (regarding race, etc)
(7) was reaction to any of the above
NOTE:
(A) Repeatedly responding (6) to inappropriate comments is no less grounds for banning.
(b) We're sorry if a few comments are being deleted on accident as we attempt to weed out a recent series of inappropriate comments. Our intention is to err on the side of leniency, as comments that are borderline should not hurt the comment section atmosphere if they are responded to in a deliberately appropriate manner. However, one way to avoid having a well-intended comment be deleted in the course of a cleanup action is to consciously make sure it does not push the limits of what can be seen as appropriate.
(C) Take into account that some comments deemed appropriate may address comments deleted for inappropriate language.
(D) Responses to this moderation action are off topic if made in this comment section.]
Adrian (male) is a class act, for sure.
One thought about Amb. Lee’s statements that occurred to me is that his ministry has been repeatedly caught sleeping at the switch while bad things have happened to Koreans overseas, including the beheading of the young translator in Iraq, the execution of a Korean drugrunner in China while golf-loving consulate officials lost track of his case and the recent attempt to get home to the ROK by that elderly Korean War prisoner who escaped from the North. So, as someone pointed out yesterday, Seoul believed it had to err on the side of doing something. Perhaps the message wasn’t tested on anyone outside a tight circle, suffering from the same lack of audience input that brought us “Korea, Sparkling” or “Hi, Seoul.”
[DELETED for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) off topic
(2) personal attack
(3) used inappropriate language or tone
(4) ongoing personal conflict
(5) took issue with commenter (qualifications, etc) instead of actual comment content
(6) quotes rumor in a manner that is inflammatory (regarding race, etc)
(7) was reaction to any of the above
NOTE:
(A) Repeatedly responding (6) to inappropriate comments is no less grounds for banning.
(b) We're sorry if a few comments are being deleted on accident as we attempt to weed out a recent series of inappropriate comments. Our intention is to err on the side of leniency, as comments that are borderline should not hurt the comment section atmosphere if they are responded to in a deliberately appropriate manner. However, one way to avoid having a well-intended comment be deleted in the course of a cleanup action is to consciously make sure it does not push the limits of what can be seen as appropriate.
(C) Take into account that some comments deemed appropriate may address comments deleted for inappropriate language.
(D) Responses to this moderation action are off topic if made in this comment section.]
[DELETED for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) off topic
(2) personal attack
(3) used inappropriate language or tone
(4) ongoing personal conflict
(5) took issue with commenter (qualifications, etc) instead of actual comment content
(6) quotes rumor in a manner that is inflammatory (regarding race, etc)
(7) was reaction to any of the above
NOTE:
(A) Repeatedly responding (6) to inappropriate comments is no less grounds for banning.
(b) We're sorry if a few comments are being deleted on accident as we attempt to weed out a recent series of inappropriate comments. Our intention is to err on the side of leniency, as comments that are borderline should not hurt the comment section atmosphere if they are responded to in a deliberately appropriate manner. However, one way to avoid having a well-intended comment be deleted in the course of a cleanup action is to consciously make sure it does not push the limits of what can be seen as appropriate.
(C) Take into account that some comments deemed appropriate may address comments deleted for inappropriate language.
(D) Responses to this moderation action are off topic if made in this comment section.]
“but thought it was a somewhat amusing development for a legal permanent resident…”
You’ve been here long enough, I don’t have to tell you how it’s not rare to come across a pencil pusher who’ll deny you a service based on the assumptions that their employer shares their own prejudices and xenophobia or that you’re too stupid to know any better.
I fully agree with article. Well expressed.
Question to Andy,
Just for my curiosity…
“Adrian Hong (someone you will hear more from in the future)”
Why is that?
That was a very eloquent and pertinent essay. Thanks for the link, Andy.
As a Korean American, I have to grade Adrian a C+ for that article. It hits all the major points, but it’s not that understandable to the average reader of the Washington Post. I have this sense that he was writting to someone like me, a Korean American, as opposed to the AVERAGE American. In times like this, I wish Korean Americans can reach out and communicate our concerns and desires to the AVERAGE American who make up 99% of the U.S. population.
For the record, Andrian didn’t always believe this. on the 17th, we got an email from Adrian’s organization, as well as several other KA organizations regarding the establishment of a Memorial Fund for the VT victims. I for one am not opposed to the establishment of this fund, but the email sent out buy these KA organizations seemed to imply that the KA community bore some responsibility, something I am very much opposed to.
Sympathy, concern, outrage and mourning yes. Guilt, responsibility and shame, no.
I have the exact opposite reaction.
Hong’s article works precisely in as much as it presents a view appropriate for the Average American, an oversimplified perspective, a gesture that gives them what they need to know without the thicker qualia and politics. For instance, I disagree that the issue of Koreans apologizing is as simple as a rudimentary ethical concept like “I am to morally liable for another Korean’s action” in the context of “Are Koreans to blame?”.
Hong gets the message across that “We are American individuals… and Cho is his own individual” but what he’s representing is hardly the reality. His essay has a practical value only and is uninformative otherwise.
@wangKon936:
Did the email actually imply that KAs bore some responsibility or was the the memorial fund perhaps a means for the Korean-American community to distance itself from the shooter and/or show solidarity with a nation in shock? I agree with you that any special gestures by Korean-Americans, such as this fund, are completely unnecessary. News stories have made it clear that Americans in general are rightfully not making any connections between Cho’s nationality and his mass shootings. Even if a significant number of Americans were making judgments or blaming Korean Americans, the solution would educating people not giving money to the families of the victims.
Alright,
Here is the exact wording:
“KAC, the Mirae Foundation, and the Southern California Korean College Student Association have joined to create the ‘Virginia Tech Memorial Fund’ to support those who have been affected by the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Korean American community hopes that the memorial fund will help the victims and their families recover from this tragedy and begin their healing process.”
To me, and many other Korean Americans a part of the distribution list, that wording came across as a admission of guilt and responsibility from an event we shouldn’t feel guilty or responsibile for. It was sent the morning of the 17th, shortly after the announcement that the shooter was Korean. The timing, in my opinion, was terrible. People are mourning. Why in the world do you talk about money this early on? It also seemed inadequate in that these organizations didn’t advocate any vigils, prayers, chain letters or anything else that showed real sympathy and was taking the financial angle so soon. At least in my opinion. Other KAs might feel different.
WangKon936,
Thank you for taking the time to post the original language. Frankly, I do not see even any implied motive communicated in the excerpt you provided. Numerous religious, civic, and ethnic organizations solicited aid from their members in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Such solicitations in no way implied guilt or responsibility. Likewise, I am sure that there are other groups in this country organizing help for VT victims and their families. With no motive communicated in the excerpt you provided, we can only surmise the intent of the organizers.
The appropriateness of soliciting money as opposed to prayers or vigils is a separate issue from the ethnic Korean identities of the organizers and the distribution list.
It’s not my place to tell you how to feel about the appropriateness of the request for money. I just don’t see any admission of guilt whatsoever in the text you provided.
Sonagi,
A couple of things. Several of my colleagues (including myself) felt uncomfortable with a “memorial fund” being the first official KA act in response to the tragedy. We were hoping that the organizations that repute to represent us would issue something more softer and sincere. Discussions about money seemed a bit self serving right after the press releases that revealed the shooter’s ethnicity came out.
You are correct though. The verbiage from the announcement itself doesn’t say anything directly about guilt or responsibility. I think the objections were more about timing and just how monetary compensation in general, given the timing, may make us appear to have more then appropriate feelings of guilt and responsibility.
Outstanding piece, indeed.
“As a Korean American, I have to grade Adrian a C+ for that article. It hits all the major points, but it’s not that understandable to the average reader of the Washington Post. I have this sense that he was writting to someone like me, a Korean American, as opposed to the AVERAGE American. In times like this, I wish Korean Americans can reach out and communicate our concerns and desires to the AVERAGE American who make up 99% of the U.S. population.”
So, Korean Americans make up one percent…and then you group the rest of Americans in the same boat regardless of the wide variety of demographic factors that exist in such a culturally diverse society? As a teacher and a non-Korean American who got his message, I have to grade you an F.
PS. It just occurred to me…Would the South Koreans who say that Cho was really a Korean American despite his lack of American citizenship consider me a Canadian-Korean since I’m a permanent resident?
Well, you’ve had the advantage of living in Korea for some time now. 99% of Americans don’t know a dang thing about Korea. I’d bet you tomorrow’s lunch that 70% of people in America would think that Samsung is a Japanese company. The article talks about Koreans, then Korean Americans, then Koreans from Korea. I would think some people would get confused if they couldn’t differentiate between the different mindsets and backgrounds of all three. I think Adrian tried too much in that one article. I never said that I didn’t agree with Adrian, I just thought the article didn’t speak very well to the average American and in my opinion, I think Adrian’s article didn’t played well in Peoria.
Me, being KA, I understood it perfectly. As an expat in Korea, you can certainly differentiate between KAs (or what you call “Kyopos”), Koreans who have lived in America and native Koreans. But I think a lot of Americans are going to get lost somewhere in the middle of that article. If I’m wrong, let me know. Let’s all respect one another here.
“99% of Americans don’t know a dang thing about Korea.”
“As an expat in Korea, you can certainly differentiate between KAs (or what you call “Kyopos”), Koreans who have lived in America and native Koreans.”
Please, that’s kind of insulting and almost racist. Really, you shouldn’t underestimate other people’s intelligence like that.
Jimong (#16)
I have only met Adrian a couple of times and have exchanged emails with him a few more, but that is enough to convince me that he is smart, passionate and (most importantly) driven enough to go far.
Plus he has really nice hair.
Of course Cho doesn’t represent Koreans. He doesn’t represent Americans either. He represents himself. Nothing more, nothing less.
So, it’s ridiculous to consider backlash. The only people backlashing will be dumbfucks who don’t know better.
However, when it comes to apologizing for the sins of one’s countrymen, I find myself doing it all the time.
I constantly apologize to Koreans for the idiots running America, namely the shrub and the dick and all their assorted ilk.
“They aren’t Americans,” I tell them. “They are something totally evil. Something else.”
“Please, that’s kind of insulting and almost racist. Really, you shouldn’t underestimate other people’s intelligence like that.”
Anything racist was the very last thing on my mind. Nor was I overtly meaning to be insulting in anyway. I was merely speaking my mind. Is that still possible nowadays without my character getting attacked?
However, I will stand by my assertion that most non-asians in the states are largely ignorant of Korea and the various nomers of Koreans in America (Korean American, Korean resident alien, 1.5 generation, etc.). Quite frankly, I don’t really care. Given that Koreans in America make up only a fraction of 1% of the U.S. population, that’s actually understandable. My comments regarding the average American’s ignorance of the difference between Koreans in America were strickly related to Hong’s article. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s a state of being, rather then a value judgement.
Thanks Andy.