When using the word "society" that means to mean EVERYONE AS A WHOLE. 

I do not think society failed Cho.  I think the rules we have set into place for society we not adhered to by those in-charge in Cho's life.  Sadly- there are many things being uncovered about his life that lead to this event.  Like you mention above-  the list written in 8th grade.  Come on - who was in charge of the young boy then???? 

Be in charge of your own hen house and when the wolf comes prowling be ready! (my southern rasing just came flying out)

Translation for the notherners:  Your children are your responsibility - NOT SOCIETY

Well, we do usually think of the parents, and of course I'd already thought about them. But actually, there are five (if I remember correctly from my sociology classes) socializing institutions in any society: family, education, religion, government, and economics. Take note that education (school) is the second on the list as a socializer. The students and teachers at Cho's school were a great (and likely decisive) factor in who he became as a person. Once a child reaches school age, the parents have pretty much completed their roles as major influences in the child's life (PSYC101). At that point, school becomes a major influence. In Cho's case, he was eight when he arrived in the States, already school age, so this drastic change from South Korean school (where he was normal) to a school in the States (where he was abnormal) would have had a major impact on him. Granted, it doesn't turn all immigrant children into sociopaths. But I just can't help but wonder if he wasn't failed by us over and over again.

Think about a child severely abused by a parent. The parent cannot help the child because the parent is the harm. Who then will help this child? This may or may not have been the case for Cho, but clearly, Cho's parents could not/did not help Cho. Who then was responsible to help Cho? If that isn't enough to convince you, pretend that your teenage child is having suicidal thoughts. You aren't aware because a) he/she doesn't let you in on the secret b) you work endless hours to make ends meet and have lost touch with your child c) you're like any other American parent with a teenage child. Meanwhile people around your teen notice very strange behaviors (cutting, excessive drinking, drug usage). Is it not the responsibility of those key individuals to alert someone (the parents and/or professionals) to the problem? If not, sucks to be you because your child plans to be dead by Saturday.

Now remember the phrase "no child left behind" and the "job" of our schools to educate and nurture children into productive members of society. This clearly didn't happen for Cho. Finally, think about the 32 people that died because Cho was who he was. I won't say it was morally wrong (because that would beg the question) to ignore young Cho's problems, but it certainly didn't serve to protect society (certainly one goal of our five social institutions--to shape individuals in such a manner that they safely live amongst others). It is clear to me that a major failing occurred, but I would like to dig further into our collective conscious by asking if it was not a moral failing? When we ignore and ostracize and alienate, are we committing a moral offense (in as much as such a thing exists)?

Dear Simone,

I'm reminded of a couple of poems I wrote in high school. (That I just happen to have here....)

Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool

"Thoughts in the Cubicle"
Poetry by Michael F. Nyiri
1971 (17 years old)

This one mutilates himself.
This one cries with pain in the hundredfold.
This one reclines in his existence and weeps.
We are bound by a taut wire,
Yet nobody listens to care anymore.
It seems he's an island, no company he keeps.

"The Cane But Touches the Cement"
Poetry by Michael F. Nyiri
1971 (18 years old)

Wrinkled old white-haired rumple-suited
Man standing on the streetcorner
Waiting for a bus.
His tie is tied wrong.
His glasses are crooked.
He's a streetlamp by the roadside
A blade of grass on a hill
A tree in the forest
A spectre
Yet he's alive
 And no one knows it.

Looking out at a world he's seen age.
Who knows what goes on in his head?
Where did his life go so quickly
For men to reason he's
             Just part of the scenery?

And he is -
Simply a hitching post
For eyes to rest on but a moment
Then fleetingly move to another subject.

The bus comes and he disappears forever.

Simone, I edited your quote and added to it:

"Was Cho any different than many other immigrant children new to our country?... How about the smelly homeless guy on the corner? Or the strangely dressed man that walked just a bit too close to your car? Or the grungy lady scrounging for spent cigarettes and begging for change?"

Or you?

Or me?

MFN, ppf

Cho made a choice.  He chose to kill people. That was a choice on his part,..a deliberate choice.  Cho planned ahead of time,..bought his guns ahead of time,..and chained closed the building in which he did most of his killing.  He had the forethought to write a "manifesto" and send it to MSNBC news.  Cho, a twenty three year old man, chose to make thirty two other people, aged seventeen through eighty years old,..dead.

Cho Seung Hui shot a seventy six year old Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, to death with seventeen shots to the body and a finish shot to the head because the old man blocked Cho's path to forty students trapped in a classroom.  I have trouble feeling sorry for this guy.

Just to be clear, I don't feel sorry for Cho. I doubt any of us do.

Bad things happen. I have found the news coverage, as a whole, pretty sensationalist and sickening. People are pack animals. There will always be those who are marginalized and of those, some will lash our more effectively than others. Cho was just another marginalized kid who lashed out in the most brutal way possible. The problem isn't Cho so much as it is marginalization. As far as I can tell, until that ends, such outlashes won't.

What I forgot to add concerns the news coverage. It is sick. Okay, so it'll finally get into Cho's head once all the stories of loss have been strip-mined for all it's sob-story value. Sorry to sound so caustic but that's how I feel about the modern sensationalist broadcast journalism today.

When all that settles, i.e. when people get bored, maybe we'll hear about how we 'failed' Cho. But didn't that happen with the two perpetrators of the Columbine massacre? And can we say that anything has changed?

I don't think we as a society failed Cho because I don't believe society can fail :P Society can facilitate good and bad...

Society is a reinforcer...

If you mean to ask 'Did our society have a negative effect on Cho leading him down his spiral downward?' well then thats another story...

Someone mentioned in the previous thread that Cho might not have gone this way if he had done what he wanted with his life...

The truth is we reallllllllly don't know...

I think you could argue that the Powerpuff Girls had more of an influence on Cho's life than society as a whole did...

Cho was an immigrant sure... outcast, ok... but hell, he was in college... he had a roof over his head and food in his mouth... he had enough money to buy guns (i only say that because he had to pay at least $500+ for each)... I know a lot of people and I know tons more that have had it worse...

Come on, how hasn't every loner/outcast with a small bank account and a clean record shot up their respective schools?

The truth is, life is random as hell... you never know what will influence what... I took a few psych courses and motivations were always a popular concept... what drives anyone to do anything...

On the grand scheme of things can you narrow it down to usual patterns of motivations? sure... it might even apply to 999 out of 1000 people... but its not a perfect science... there is no law to human psych...

Put it any way you like... call it fate... call it divine intervention... call it a failure of society... call it the work of the devil... call it the wrath of a vengeful God... call it a bad day on a bad year in a bad place... call it gun control... call it a parental issue... call it crazy... call it anything you'd like... but make sure you know that its pure, unadulterated cowardice.

Did we fail as a society to Cho? Yeah. but I believe that is what society is for...

The greatest stories ever told have to do with the ability to overcome in the face of all odds.

Every single one of us feels society has failed them at least once in their lives... I defy you to find one person who hasn't ran into at least one societal wall...

But instead of facing his issues... instead of rising against whatever problems he may have... Cho took the easy way out...

He couldn't make it in this world, so he decided to feel important before he left... mustered up all his fake courage and took out innocent lives just so his name could be in lights... even if he was dead at the end of it...

No one touched by VT will ever forget him... and in doing so he made his mark in our society, he added his name to the list of people who just can't do it... Who reach out for attention in the final attempts to be noticed.

My original statement did not call him a coward... I said that Cho was 'pure, unadulterated evil'... but thats not true... not at all...

Evil shows no remorse... real evil knows no other company than such... Cho wasn't evil... Cho did as much bad as he could in his version of a temper tantrum before ending it so he wouldn't have to face what he had done. He posed... he laughed as he killed people... he left threatening 'omfg i had to do it' messages... sent packages to MSNBC... he made his mark and escaped his punishment which he knew society would put upon him by ending it himself... a joke... a coward.

So yeah we did fail as a society... but Cho failed as an individual to desire to overcome those societal failures...

And in doing so he took the lives of people that deserved better than that...

32 lives lost because one kid threw a tantrum.

No one deserves that.

ha, i must come off so cynical to you guys sometimes :P

I'm really not... swear <3

I guess I had a general response to this at my own blog .. read it if you care.

Should we sate them just so that our friends dont die? Yes and no. Someone should have taken care of him sooner. Read my last 2 blogs.

He failed us, we didn't fail him.

Piratebuddha: cynical? Actually, I couldn't agree with you more.

But you haven't answered the question. The question is about our own behavior, not Cho's.

Piratebuddha, thinking about your answer further, I think maybe you have answered the question. You said, "society can't fail." Just to clarify that I have an understanding of what you're saying. In this case, I could hypothetically walk down the street and sees a ragged and sickly soul splayed out on the grass, as if he/she'd been mugged/robbed/raped, etc., and it would be completely moral to assume that someone else was taking care of the person (and even if I felt no one was), so I could without guilt of any moral failing keep on walking by. Yes?

Regarding my last answer, I should have said, "I coudn't agree with you more about the cowardice of Cho."

No!  I am one of the immigrated people who came here without a penny literally.  I speak with an accent that it is hard to understand.  I have been treated badly from time to time.  Yes, I encounter discrimination many times but I deal with it, and I am grateful that at least I still have the law protect me.  Many of us overcame obstacles to build a great life, acheive personal success, etc.  We are responsible for our lives.  Cho got to attend one of the best colleges, have a decent life, have extra money to buy weapons, etc.  He failed us.

This reminds me of the movie Emperors Club when Kevin Cline's character tells his former student that he failed him because his former student has failed to learn morals. In all honesty it is the student that failed the teacher and the student that failed himself. Yet Cline's character feels responsible because he is a good teacher and a good human, and as a good teacher and good human he realizes that he cannot account for the students behavior, only his own because the only one that can account for their behavior is themselves. Asking this question, and seeing it posted in the news, and seeing others respond to it reinforces the belief in me that American society is not as bad as some people would like us to believe.

:D

Man, first time I didn't have to explain myself... I'm still waiting for a few others to pick me apart :(

It's cool though, I love t he debate :D

Years ago a young guy went to the States from a tiny island in the Pacific Ocean, as an exchange student. Where he had grown up, he said, people were not aggressive and nice to each other. They would not take pleasure in power trips or displays of arrogance. This guy was smiling and nice to everybody. But young guys in high school started to pick on him, calling him with names. To the "tough guys" his "softness" and "niceness" was "different".

He never reacted violently, but the tension accumulated produced in him a perforating ulcer, for which he nearly died.

Who is this "we" you speak of? Do you assume I look down on poor people? How dare you. Do you assume I look down on different ethnicities, cultures or races? How dare you. I judge individuals ...always have. I blame CHO.  This inclination of Western civ to self blame  for all the ills of humantiy will kill us and the world. It's rather arrogant, looked at logically, to assume you (America, the West) make ALL the bad and/or ALL the good in the lives of human beings.

Perhaps this is a little off topic but I'm not pleased with this rush to "healing" ..makes me wanna barf ...candle light vigils, John Lennon songs, swaying to the music holding hands ...hogwash. Our world is full of people who proclaim the virtue of authenticity. What a crock of horse droppings to think healing is authentic after your friends have been slaughtered. It's well intentioned, I understand that. But, it's also damaging in the long run and foolish to "heal" mere hours after such atrocities. It's not authentic.  It's a cartoon bandaid meant for children with knee scrapes, not for a massive headwound.  People must "bleed out" ...let the steam off. It's narcissistic to focus on me and my pain after such horrors done to others. Send a card to the those parents and tell them you're healing. What discordant feelings must pop up in their minds as the Oprahized subconcious of the American mind foists upon them.

The focus should be on the families who lost not the "community" of VT or the shocked nation. We are preoccupied with feelings and the elimination of pain.

Nick picking more, but they didn't die! They were murdered! He's not a gunman ...he was a murderer. It wasn't a tragedy. They make it sound like a tornado got lose and killed some people. It was evil.

FOOLS! Fools are we all. Lets sing another round of Barny's "I love you, you love me". Well intentioned foolhardiness abounds contributing to more atrocities in the future, of omission and commission.

piratebuddha, I don't think we agree on the morality of it, though. I feel that if there is such a thing as morality (good and bad, right and wrong of things), I feel that walking by or ignoring a suffering person is such a thing. Our Good Sam laws are in accordance with my feelings on this matter. It's also a "you-scratch-my-back,-I'll-scratch-yours" law. I trust that you'll save my daughter if you see her dying from a knife wound, and you trust that I'd do the same if I saw your son dying of a knife wound. Surely this is part of what makes a community (loose-knit as we are). Such unwritten agreements help us feel safe in society. They're part of our culture, a cultural more.

So imo, it is morally wrong to ignore suffering children in school, those little ones that we see having difficulty integrating or socializing with their peers. If I was to feel sorry for a Cho, it would be the Cho that once was, the little-boy Cho. I don't believe I'm too far off-the-mark on this, as our goverment and educators work to help these children integrate and socialize properly. It's very clear what happens when a child falls through the cracks. Imagine if it happened in much greater number.

JoeLondon, of course I wonder who this person was. You? Someone close to you?

Creed_of_Kings, I disagree with you on the value of vigils. Vigils are a time where those left behind can mourn and remember those lost. I don't think those participating are faking their feelings. It does seem ridiculous to speak of healing (or moving on) so quickly after such a massacre, and I appreciate your need to voice your feelings. But it seems belittling of you to assume everyone out there is just faking it by attending a vigil or wearing a shirt. I think that's very presumptuous. In my community, many lives have been affected by this one event.

PilgrimofTruth, thank you.
Your words are healing.

Simone, why should details matter? The point is that the story is emblematic.

However I have happened to get to meet the guy I mentioned above after he had been to the hospital.

He did not tell me anything. I was told the story by the person in charge of the exchange programme. Bullying stories, or the like, are surely not unfrequent. Suicides due to bullying are not unfrequent either.

That of course is violence too is it not? inward, but still violence, determined by violence.

So really if one thinks about, it seems to me that whenever there are outbursts of violence, either inward or outward, most likely that violence has built up due to the actions of others. This might not be appreciated by those who extoll "free will", but still.....

The nice ending, in this case, is that after he went back to his country he became a top diplomat... while I doubt the ones who got a kick out of bullying him went much further than cracking racist jokes in some bar, immersed in alcoholic fumes.

Response to JoeLondon was left on his blog. Check it out. He's written a very insightful poem.

"But it seems belittling of you to assume everyone out there is just faking it by attending a vigil or wearing a shirt."

Please point out where I said people are intentionally being fake? In this postmodern world I don't think people would know a geniune FEELING if it slapped them in the face nor do they know how to control actions and sublimate feelings. We are reactionary and compulsive ...we are very emotional about lots of issues ...Cho had FEELINGS...we can supply ample emotion to amp up anything. But, so what! Our times let you have FEELINGS and they are genuine because they are feelings. In our world people bang that gong, that note over and over "I'm having feelings" *sniff* and they believe that is the height of enlightenment to be "in touch with my feelings".  The human insinct has many notes and like a metal song we grunge on the E Cord and sow discord when a better song can be sung. Just be because you HAVE feelings does not automatically make them CORRECT in the situation. It's a MOOD. The feelings they have are not WRONG simply inappropriate, and they've been taught FEELINGS are authentic and one should be genuine and so whatever feeling they have they assume is appropriate.

I've been murdered and you wear a t-shirt ...thanks.

Did we as a society fail Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? What about Michael Corneal, or Mitchel Johnson?

How are they different from Cho?

They were rich white suburban kids. So we couldn't have possibly failed them.

Now remember the phrase "no child left behind" and the "job" of our schools to educate and nurture children into productive members of society.

And before you blame Bush for this one as well, remember that Cho was already well into his high school years before Bush took office. In fact, his formative years (during which the alleged trauma that "made" him commit this atrocity occurred) were largely during the Clinton administration.

So yes, say society failed. Yes, say it is the fault of "no child left behind." Go right ahead.

And then in a few years, wonder why it happened again.