Who Killed Vincent Chin.: A Critique of Who Killed Vincent Chin? III

Where then, should that screentime be directed? Fishbein asserts that many decisive facts were left unmentioned in the film.2 A black bystander testified that Ebens and Nitz were attempting to attack another Chinese victim. A black police officer confirms this testimony by asserting that Ebens and Nitz were in fact, planning to prey on Chin’s friend, Jimmy Choy, as well. This is a critical piece of information linking Ebens to racism, yet is omitted from the film because of the filmmaking style, where voiceovers and narrations are unable to fill in the missing information.2 If the film wished to gather a wide range of perspectives, why aren't these aforementioned participants, as well as Chin’s friends included in the film as well? In addition, Choy and Tajima fail to mention that Ebens’ original conviction of twenty-five years was only overturned when the trial moved from Detroit to Cincinnati, a different, more "conservative" landscape. When relocated from Detroit to Cincinnati, the trial judge neglected to submit taped evidence of purported coaching of prosecution witnesses.2 The prosecution for the case, had also failed to show up, which Fishbein asserts was a factor in the lenient conviction of Ebens.2 This information, had it been included more extensively in the film, would have transitioned into talking points about minority groups in the realm of white hegemonic society, where the judicial system fails to put its best effort to bring forth justice for them. The link between racism and this case NEEDS to be made.

Choy and Tajima traded off dry, but relevant facts about the case to create a more emotionally-driven film. Through the humanization of Chin, which admittedly, was much needed, they attempt to wake the audience's’ hearts rather than their minds. However, say all of the above to sayt this - feelings cannot stand alone in revolutionary movement. Emotions are fleeting. Knowledge of the history guides the movement towards a direction. Knowledge is power. Without knowledge, the pent-up frustration is misguided and the people are left aimlessly swinging punches in the dark. Racism is not a singular entity to destroy, you have to dismantle the roots and branches, yet Who Killed Vincent Chin? fails to fully explain these roots by omitting the previously mentioned details. Choy and Tajima fail to convey that those roots and branches lead to America’s tallest and oldest tree: white supremacy. With no distinct narrative of racism as the unquestioned cause of Chin’s death and shared grievance in the Asian American community, the movement cannot reach its peak. The pan-Asian movement that initially resulted from Chin’s death has for the most part, withered.

Chin’s aftermath and his legacy, or lack thereof, proves this. After more months of protesting, Chin is largely forgotten. Perhaps a paragraph or two in a standard American history book will speak about the tragedy as merely a sideshow to the African American Civil Rights Movement, if at all. However’s what’s most important is that Ebens got away with a sentence disproportionate to his crime and after 30 years, many of the racist mechanisms ingrained within our society still exist. The model minority and perpetual foreigner myth, which Vincent Chin embodied, continue to undermine Asian racism today. Ryo Oyamada, another Asian life that was taken away in 2013, draws striking parallels to Chin. In fact, the racial undertones were more transparent.

Ran over by a NYPD officer. Crime covered up.

However, in contrast, there was zero backlash against the justice system. There is no doubt in my mind that if Chin’s case was more well-known, publicized and better understood, that Oyamada’s case would be thrown into the mainstream. If Choy and Tajima were more fearless with challenging the white hegemonic structure, sparking more varied public perception with the film, Chin may not have achieved individual justice, but Asian Americans would be more united and empowered through a greater grasp of reality. Most today, to be frank, do not know their own history and subscribe to the mainstream, manufactured, white liberal ideals and schemas today such as "When a white man commits a crime, he is a 'lonewolf'" when in actuality, mountains of evidence suggest that most crimes are racially motivated. To be blunt, Choy and Tajima play the role of "model minority" by never attacking white supremacy head-on. Almost 40 years have passed and the our "activists" today still do the same - always maneuvering and finding excuses to not put our own interests first when every single other minority in America has unapologetically fought for their own justice.

Chin’s aftermath and his legacy, or lack thereof, proves this lack of cohesiveness in Asian America. After more months of protesting, Chin is largely forgotten. Perhaps a paragraph or two in a standard American history book will speak about the tragedy as merely a sideshow to the African American Civil Rights Movement, if at all. However’s what’s most important is that Ebens got away with a sentence disproportionate to his crime and after 30 years, many of the racist mechanisms ingrained within our society still exist. The model minority and perpetual foreigner myth, which Vincent Chin embodied, continuesto undermine Asian racism today.

Although Who Killed Vincent Chin? was well-received for introducing Vincent Chin to the public sphere, it was underwhelming with regards to its critical assessment. Fishbein’s criticism is unalligned with public perception, but more realistic in terms of bringing tangible, obserbvable social change. Rarely, does Asia America have the chance to represent themselves and speak their narratives in film. Filled with tremendous potential to unite and empower Asian America and ignite social change, Who Killed Vincent Chin? was that golden opportunity. However, as Fishbein asserts, instead of relentlessly asserting that race was a factor (which once again, EVERY other subjugated minority has done regularly through their own media), Choy and Tajima fell back on trying to promote “objectivity” through subjective perspectives. The answer to who killed Vincent Chin? should have been answered thoroughly with conviction, firing on all cylinders — through sociological, psychological and historical lenses. The answer, like most things, leads to white supremacy.Yet, the question is answered passively answered with a general, surface-level murmur of “racism.” Who Killed Vincent Chin? did fairly well in retelling the incident, but falls flat with weaving the concept of race in the context of America at large. As a result, its potential to affect the national movement toward “equality” is disappointingly finite.

Asian America needs to go harder. Attack white supremacy full throttle; moments like these do not come often. By giving these white criminals opportunities to speak everytime they commit a crime, it perpetuates the notion that these whites are individually bad apples, when in actuality, they fall off the tree of white entitlement. White supremacy and the collective deeds and atrocities of white individuals need to be put into trial. Until then, expecting change here for Asian America is irrational. Our leaders have sold us out.

End Notes

(1) Canby, Vincent. "Review: New Directors/New Films; 'Who Killed Vincent Chin?': Answer Is

Complex." The New York Times. 1988. Accessed May 19, 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/11/movies/review-new-directors-new-films-who-killed-vincent-chin-answer-is-complex.html.

(2) Fishbein, Leslie, Christine Choy, and Renee Tajima. "Who Killed Vincent Chin?" The

American Historical Review 95, no. 4 (1990): 0-7. doi:10.2307/2163497.

(3) Smith, Mark Shalon. "MOVIE REVIEW : Rhetorical Question: 'Who Killed Vincent Chin?'

Thought-provoking Documentary Leaves Conclusions to Viewers at UCI's Asian/Pacific

Film and Video Festival." Los Angeles Times. 1993. Accessed May 19, 2016. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-28/entertainment/ca-40752_1_vincent-chin.