August 20, 2005

Why Kill Them?

During the months of May, June, July and August there have been many reports of women missing. Since I am from Philadelphia, people who are missing from Philadelphia are the ones that interest me the most. The three main missing females in Philadelphia are: Latoyia Figueroa, and Danielle Imbo, and Taneke Daniels. The only case that recently got solved was Latoyia Figueroa's. Police have charged her ex-boyfriend, Steven Poaches, with her murder. The two other cases are still unsolved and police have no lead. The most popular missing persons case as of right now is Natalee Holloway. Holloway is from Alabama, who went missing in Aruba.
I believe that Natalee, Danielle, and Taneke are all to be believed dead. I just do not know why their killers had to kill them.

In the cases of Figueroa and Holloway, both suspects are male. Van der Sloot looks nothing like a criminal and Poaches looks like a typical "inner-city" guy. Since I grew up in South Philly, I have seen more than I should have. Now, with the National News reporting women missing and most suspects are male, I feel like I can't trust anyone, especially men. Poaches killed his ex-girlfriend because he messed up. He got two girls pregnant at the same time and felt like he needed to get rid of one. Who gives that guy the right? They should charge that guy with double murder and kill him before he has the chance to think about what he did. And Melvin Figueroa called Poaches that "gentlemen". He should have been called much worse. But why did he have to kill her? She wasn't threatening his life or putting his baby's life in danger. This is just a guy that totally crossed the line and killed not one, but two innocent people, and one was His unborn child.

Same thing for Natalee, but police have not charged Van der Sloot with Natalee's murder, but I am. I feel like he killed her either by himself or he helped his friends. Now, I know that this is going to sound harsh, but I mean it in the best possible way. I want to know why Van der Sloot had to kill her? Why couldn't he just rape her and leave? Both scenarios are horrible, but I'm just trying to figure out why they felt they had to kill them. Why couldn't Van der Sloot take what he wanted and leave. Since Natalee did not know him before that night, there couldn't have been anything that made him so angry, angry enough to kill her. Why couldn't Poaches accept his responsibilty and take care of his child instead of killing him or her? But there are no answers. It's not because Poaches is uneducated and comes from a poor background, because Van der Sloot did the same thing and he was brought up fine. Even Scott Peterson killed his wife and child for no good reason.

I will never have the answer, nor will you. There are horrible crimes that are happening all over the world and there are no explanatiosn to explain them. Point being, even if we killed every person, male or female, who unfairly killed another human being people would still be asking, "Why Kill Them?" As long as there is murder, peoples' families will continue to be torn apart and as much as people wish justice will get done- there will still be a hole in everyones' life of the person who was unfairly taken away from them. And the question that will linger in their minds will be, "Why did he/she feel they had to kill them?"

Posted by GinaBurgese at 7:35 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 10, 2005

Understanding Stories: Up Close and Personal

The reason that education has become so important in "The United States of America" is because people want their children, as well as themselves, to be as eductaed as they possibly can. A major component of becoming educated and well rounded is by looking in the past. Their are people that are still doing research trying to figure out "Why men treated women so poorly?, Why there was such a diversity between Caucasians and African Americans?

Before reading Marina Angel's "Susan Glaspell's Trifles and A Jury of Her Peers: Women Abuse in a Literary and Legal Context" , I knew that those questions, stated above, all have answers to them. The reason is simple. Society became accustomed to men controlling people, especially women. Women did not stand up for themselves and if there was one brazen women, who would dare question her "master”, she would be hanged so she could be used as an example towards other women who thought about "disrespecting" their husbands. It was just "the way it was". But the reason becomes much more clear after reading the article written by Marina Angel.

Angel's article let her audience get into the "setting" of "A Jury of Her Peers", even if they had never read the story previously. "A Jury of Her Peers" was written by Susan Glaspell. Angel's article made me come up with some answers to questions that arose after reading "A Jury of Her Peers and Trifles".

The reason why I believe that Glaspell did not simply republish her news-paper articles was because I feel as a "women" and "journalist" at that time people would have thought that she was "queer". It was not the time nor place for someone to help women understand the reasons why men behanved the way that they did, especially because she, herself, was a woman. I have thought about why Glaspell would write a one act play and the again make the same story into a short story. The only reaon that makes some sense to me was because she wanted to attract as many people to her story as she possibly could. Her job as a journalist, writer, etc. was to make people read her story and that was exactly what she did. She did not end the story nor play with a solid conclusion, the ending is simply left up to your imagination, choose it as you please. That would, of course, justify how men would chose their ending as well as women would choose theirs and she would have satisified every sex who read the story. I do not believe that she wanted to recreate an account of factual events.

Since Glaspell chose to write about this story many years after she had researched and wrote about, it obviously had an impact on her own life. I feel that she chose to write "Trifles" and "A Jury of Her Peers" because during the time she investigated the events that those stories were based on she had conflicting thoughts. She went from calling the suspect, Mrs. Hoccack, "cold, calm, and menancing" to "worn and emanciated." This makes me feel that she got swept up into this story and felt like she wanted to create this imaginary relationship between women and men to make people realize the power of people when they stick together.

As like other stories, there is no solid reason why authors wrote the stories that they did. There are only people's opinions. Some will strongly agree with the reasons I gave to help me understand the actions of Glaspell and others will strongly disagree. Because as Angel said, "If diversity does not exist important stories will not be told and heard." The only way to come up with explanations is to become familiar with the subject and study the behaviors of the people performing the actions.

Posted by GinaBurgese at 6:44 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack