Soul-sucking white liberalism

Virginia Tech killer: Question mark on the white liberal media

By Anthony Oluwatoyin

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

The Virginia Tech student-killer was referred to as the "Question mark kid," apparently after putting the mark where he was supposed to sign his name and indeed, telling dorm mates that his name was just that: Question mark.

Now Seung-Hui Cho's killing spree has put the entire media to a heavy question mark.

You see, he simply refuses to fit the profile that is crucial to white liberal analysis, no matter the exact angle of inquiry. Which of course brings suspicion to the integrity of such an investigation.

Though Cho was born poor in South Korea, his family, in prototypical Asian fashion, readily took advantage of American opportunities on arriving in the country. Nor did they pull some unusual stunt. They ploughed their whole being into that oldest Asian stereotype: the drycleaning business of long hours, killer-routine and noble sweat.

In less than a half-generation their older child, a girl – no less, Cho's sister, had graduated from Princeton – no less. And Cho was not far behind. Before he was the "Question mark kid," he was the trombone kid, making for the bus stop to some very American middle class lessons. He was known to be brilliant in mathematics (the stereotype) but no less brilliant in English (by no means an Asian stereotype). Indeed, English was his major at Virginia Tech. Whatever his exact problems, he was in fact a contra-type, not at all marginalized in migrant alienation.

Still, identity was always a skeleton rattling in the family closet of his developing mind. His father, on moving the family from Seoul, South Korea, to the U.S. is reported to have said that "it's better to live in a place where he is unknown." It is unclear whether he was referring to the boy, to himself – the father as father, family caretaker – or, in a general sense, to anyone in his situation back then. Or, all of the above. In any case, why not simply say "it's better in a place with known opportunities"? Why the person, instead of the option (available to the person)?

By the time he was college-ready, Cho was also ready to complete his program of self-dissonance. And he had the language for it. He chose the famed balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, scene ii, in which Romeo laments, "My name, dear saint, is hateful to myself/an enemy to thee." Unfortunately the targets of his subterranean advances did not follow the text. There was no empathetic rejoinder as in Juliet's: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet."

So the killer-boy took to the kill. The politically correct media didn't even have the guts to pursue a tortured racial possibility here. Was Cho especially humiliated by the fact that the many subjects of his wanton attraction were apparently almost always white girls? On at least one occasion, on being rebuffed yet again, Cho resorted to cell-phone photos of a white boy, one of his dorm mates. Was he desperate for a "substitute" white love?

Would a backdrop of Korean-Korean, or at least Asian-Asian romantic attempts have made any difference? This was not the first campus Asian boy, white love interest, exploding so tragically. If white liberals were not so racially compromised they could at least open the question to a danger lurking for a repeat. Is rejection by a white girl any different for an Asian boy than a boy of any other race?

White girls reject white boys all the time. How can we articulate romantic rejections across racial lines so that we offer something new and constructive here? We don't want to aggravate a racial angle that may well be negligible. But, is there some twisted pain that can fruitfully be disentangled here? Or, is this another one of those, "how dare you even go there"?

All the things white liberals don't dare touch have become lethal to the touch.

Liberals won't roll back even one bit of sweeping privacy protections that concealed stalking accusations (no charges) against Cho and related counseling recommendations from multiple sources, including an apparent, brief, involuntary commitment.

But, as always, the cabal that would blame everything and everyone except the perpetrator, wasted no time jumping the gun on gun control ("if no one had any gun, this would not have happened").

Cho was sophisticated enough to exploit the diabolical double standards. In materials and other documents that came to light in the aftermath of his death, he ranted: "You caused me to do this." Spoken like a true ethnic derivative of soul-sucking white liberalism!

He did not merely eschew personal responsibility, in a pseudo-Manifesto patterned on that of The Unabomber, Harvard-educated Ted Kaczynski, Cho decried the "debauchery" of rich (white???) kids who had reduced him to nothing but "a piece of s--t."

From there, he paused only long enough to post the package of materials to NBC News and reload between Act 1 and Act 11 of his final curtain.

He survives in re-runs scripted by his white liberal useful idiots.