April 19, 2007

  • Seung-Hui Cho's Senior Project and Final Grade

    Four days ago, a young English student turned in a senior project of sorts. He used multimedia to tell a story of victimhood, through the pained sufferer Seung-Hui Cho and the murderous alter-ego Ismail Ax. Unlike many an academic, he decided to apply his thesis to the real world. Unfortunately, in this case a dose of practicality was lethal. Under the circumstances, it seems as if the student has failed, and no posthumous degree should be awarded to young Cho. Yet, one must ask, on what flaw in logic or theory should Mr. Cho's thesis be rejected?

    As a culture, we have raised the victim to an exalted place in society. Many of our movies, music, and law are about the "victim", now empowered, raising up to avenge him/herself on his/her persecutors. It's true whether you are black (rap), Asian (martial-arts movies) or Caucasian (Westerns; trial-lawyers in many industries; yes, I know, weak generalization). Or, we claim that any action, no matter how extreme, taken on behalf of the weak and persecuted is permissible (hello, Islamic terrorists, IRA, pro-life demonstrators, and PETA). And thus, unfortunately, Mr. Cho had plenty of cultural support for his hypothesis; that suffering entitles one to unlimited vengeance and compensation. The man said, "You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and defenseless people."

    Instead, I believe the correct approach is an emphasis on the Biblical standard that "There is no one righteous, no not one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God." Under this standard, Mr Cho would have realized that though he may have felt persecuted or ostracized (and maybe he was; the story is not at all clear), he had no right to vengeance. He too was a sinner, in desperate need of forgiveness. His enemies might wrong him a thousand times, yet he would similarly be judged for each shot he fired in return. Vengeance truly belongs in the hands of God. In a culture that rejects absolute standards, however, vengeance is in the hands of a man. Because of our standards, Seung-Hui had more justifiability to his hypothesis than we'd like to admit. However, in the eyes of God, Cho had no right at all, and sadly, it appears that he has eternally failed. Tragic, to fail in both this life and the next.

Comments (5)

  • In the summer between 7th and 8th grade, I had a growth spurt.  I have no idea how many inches I grew, but when I came back, the geeks I used to hang out with were waaaay shorter than me, and the bullies who used to bully us were about my size.  Somewhere in the middle of the year, after getting beat on a couple of times, I fought back, and realised that I could dish out my own share of punishment.  The bullies left me alone, but continued to prey on my friends.  When I realized I was free from their reign of terror and that I had some clout, I started interceding on behalf of my friends to defend them against getting beat up.  Eventually, the bullies left us alone.  I was called the "defender of the nerds" or the "king of the nerds."  it was an exhilirating time.

    I think you bring up a very good point in that our culture ... well, all cultures, idolize the person who gets oppressed but rises up to defend the oppressed.  In recent times, we have seen the evolution of this character as the line between good and evil is blurred.  Defenders are less like Superman/Batman (sworn to never kill) and more like The Punisher or Wolverine.  Antiheroes, we call them.  Rogues.  And they are not just accepted, they hold a place of honor. 

    Cho called the columbine killers "martyrs."  He sees them as dishing out vigilante justice, and has aspired to do the same.  I thought about asking you what you felt was a good argument against this thinking, aside from the Christian argument that you have already made, but I honestly cannot come up with a sound argument against it myself.  Everything has an easy counter.  (Ex. Citizens should not carry out justice, leave it to the authorities..... no, that won't work, because the authorities are corrupt and blind.  We must avenge ourselves.)  I don't see a way to argue against this thinking within our culture.  The only way is countercultural... and I think you nailed it with Jesus.

    The difficulty in countering vigilante, stand up for yourself culture with Jesus is that Jesus takes action out of the hands of trigger happy people (no pun intended).  We are in a society where busyness rules.  Do-it-yourself books are everywhere.  Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 pecent perspiration, afterall.  People are eager to solve their own problems.  Following Jesus, requires trust in someone else to look after you.  This brings two problems:  1)  On the surface, it appears deceptively passive and lazy - "My God will take care of me."  2)  How do you encourage people who culturally lack trust for authority (vigilantes are born when they have to take action in their own hands because the authorities are unwilling or unable to do their job) to have trust for an authority figure they have never seen?

    I'm just thinking out loud.  I don't really expect you to answer these questions, but I sure am interested in hearing what you and your readers think.  I'll be back later.

  • I didnt' know about the senior thesis...

    I've tried to find words to talk about this...but I've found few.  I don't know what to say, but I'm glad ur posting on this.

  • The "senior thesis" metaphor is a little ghoulish, but appropriate, I believe, for the type of project Cho turned in to NBC.

  • yeah, not exactly a homewrecker in this case, as he hasn't seen his "wife" for 5 years, and she left after they'd been married less than 2 months.

  • ^Even outside the Christian perspective, Bokgwai, how is what Eric and Dylan--or Cho--did "vigilante justice" if he isn't targeting those who hurt him? At least in the Oldboy movie the character went after those who had imprisoned him, but this was insanity even from the Western lone-avenger-idolizing culture's perspective. They mostly killed people who didn't know them, people who never even had opportunity to do them wrong.

    If Cho--or Eric and Dylan--had targeted the bullies, specifically shooting those who had hurt them, they still would have been wrong from the Christian perspective, but your societal argument would be a lot stronger.

    Sorry if I'm a little touchy on this, but... Cho wrote about Eric and Dylan as "martyrs" and "heros" for people like him. Well, I was people like him too. And let me tell you, after Columbine I got a lot of suspicious looks because I was a loner and I was an outcast and I was somewhat antisocial and I wore lots of black and black trench coats. I remember the day after Columbine I wore my coat like every other day, not even thinking--and almost had a gun pulled on me by a cop watching for copycat killers. In the end I had to stuff my trademark coat under my bed and not take it out for over a year. And still the suspicion grew. Martyrs and heroes for the oppressed outcasts? Bullshit, Cho, they did nothing but make my life harder.

    And this is all before we even touch on the Christian perspective that G.P. describes.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment