Please re-read every sentence I wrote. I did not say Han is ONLY used regarding historical oppression. I read the article, and it is a beautiful depiction of a non-primary Korean speaker’s experience of discovering the word. This is not an attack on you specifically, but Han is a Korean word that is tied up with so much cultural significance and context and I bristle at the thought of readers coming across a misinformed generalization about it in connection to a shooting. I understand that it’s difficult to understand — the article mentions it but Koreans often describe Han as a word that has no equivalent in a different language. It’s not about personal injustice in the limited context. It has to do with situating yourself in a generational context. A close conceptual equivalent could be ancestral rage. The professor’s anecdote about a mom talking about her Han in the admissions context is supposed to be an ironic use of the word, which is not as explicitly noted in the article (written by a non-primary Korean speaker). Again, Han is not an “anger problem” in that it is not really a problem, but the genuine experience and affirmation of anger, as well as the multitude of feelings such as melancholy that accompanies it. Your Korean friends may have used it to describe their Korean rage and anger, but if they have used it in contexts of personal grievances that do not extend outside of their immediate and contemporaneous self it is an incorrect usage of the word.