Choose TWO of the following. Be sure to read and respond to your classmates' comments.
Many people in the play/movie express a personal guilt over what happened to Matt--and wonder if they could have somehow stopped this crime from happening. Why did these people not step in to stop a crime based on prejudice, discrimination, and hate? What is each person's social and moral responsiblility to stop acts of hate when they see them occur?
The murders Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson are introduced in this act more fully. What are the different perceptions of these men in the community?
Why do you think the issue of AIDS is brought up in this act? How do we as a society think of AIDS today? Does this stigmatize this crime?
I will be answering the first and second questions.
ReplyDeleteI agree that many people felt guilty about Matthew's death. I think that they didn't step in to stop the crime because of fear. I also think it was lack of experience. Because many of the people in Laramie were raised to believe that homosexuality is wrong, they didn't want to involve themselves in the crime whatsoever because they didn't want to risk their own reputations in a small section of the world where their actions would be viewed as wrongdoings. Everyone has responsibilities when it comes to hate crimes. If one doesn't believe in the action taking place, they should try to do something to stop the action. They should also try to be of aid and refuge to the victim.
I found the Henderson tried hard to defend himself by expressing guilt and compassion. He sounded very sincere and sorry for what he had done, although the judge didn't believe him. McKinney seemed surprised to hear the controversy over Matthew's beating and the brutality of it, almost as if he hadn't done it. He seemed to realize, just then, what he had done to the poor soul who didn't deserve it, truly.
1) Yea, just like Olivia said, the people all feel guilty in a way. THere's the normal "if only I had done something..." This is a normal feeling when somebody they had encoutered had died. However, the people didn't step in and stopped it was because (like Olivia said) fear of homosexuality or the dislike of it. According to the many interviews, the people said that they don't like the "sin" but love the "sinner" or just have nothing "against homosexual people." However, even with that, it automatically puts this barrier between that person and Matthew. It immediately separates the two and prevents a person from helping out Matthew.
ReplyDelete3)It is absolutely unnecessary to bring up AIDS. It's has as much relevence as bring up Matthew "having bone cancer" (I know he doesn't, i'm just using that as an analogy). It's just a disease. However, AIDS/HIV has been associated with gay people for years and by bringing this up, it almost sets up as another one of the "barriers" or separation against gay people. And it reinforces the idea that gay people (and pretty much only gay people) have AIDs. It is absolutely stupid and irrevelant.
1) I agree with what both Olivia and Rosalie said, the initial thought of having had the ability to prevent the incident from happening is natural for anyone involved in it in some way. However, these people chose not to act upon this feeling because they either felt that they were just overreacting and nothing bad would really happen, or as mentioned above, they were afraid. Similar to how little kids would almost always rather watch a bully torment their friends instead of stick up for them and put themselves at risk, this same mindset is what these people felt. If they were to step in, they would be seen as sticking up for homosexuals, which they at this point know both Henderson and McKinney don't like.
ReplyDelete2) For the most part, people were just shocked that people from Laramie had committed the crime, and the reactions from people ranged. One girl said that she knew Aaron in grade school, and said "we called him AJ then, we can't have AJ killed." And others said that he deserved to be put on a death sentence, because of the crime, regardless of whether they knew him or not. I think that people reacted differently to both of them based upon whatever prior relations they had with them, and were more lenient or more harsh based upon that.
I think the issue of AIDS was brought up, because even though we know today that any human can be infected with the disease, it was originally seen as a disease started/spread/limited to gay men. With the historical stereotype in mind, I think the inclusion of the issue of AIDS added to the fact that this was a hate crime, discriminating against gay people...even though having AIDS had nothing to do with the attack on Matt and even though, personally, I don't think it should have been included.
ReplyDeletePeople in the town who talk about the perpatrators talk about how they know them through common interactions- like a landlord, or grade school classmate, etc., and they say that even though they know how horrible the crime that the boys committed was awful, its still hard for them to see Aaron and Russell tried for the death penalty. Other people in the town say that the boys absolutely deserve the harshest punishment.
1) I think that even though people in the movie felt a personal guilt for Matthew, it may have been hard for them to step up and try and stop what was happening out of fear that they would now be associated with the crime. They were probably afraid of their community members now labeling them as gay or discriminatory terms that they did not want to be associated with. Unfortunately, sometimes fear for one's reputation can outweigh knowing what is morally right to do; which is what happened with many of the members of Matthew Shepard's community.
ReplyDelete3) I think AIDS relates to the question asked in question 1 because the disease is something else besides a label of race or sexual orientation that many people can be in fear of. The part about AIDS in the movie reminded me of the movie Philadelphia, when people were afraid to even touch Andrew Beeckett in fear of contracting the disease. It is something else that people don't want anything to do with and will leave people in isolation in order to keep themselves clear of it.
1)I agree with what has been said that people felt guilt for not trying to stop Matthew Shepard's murder, but did not take action to do so out of fear. In Laramine, it was the social norm to hate gay people. Anyone who was gay or who advocated gay rights was looked down upon or worse. No one was willing to risk their life just to defend a gay person. In hindsight, they all wish they had becuase they are now aware of the support they would have had from their community concerning the rights of gay people.
ReplyDelete3) I think AIDS was brought because it is an important aspect of who Matthew Shepard was. The fact that he had AIDS was relevent, despite what Rosalie said. This is becuase the officer was exposed to the virus and she could have caught it. The fact that Matthew Shepard was terminally ill due to the virus is a very relevent aspect of the case. It brings up the point: is it "better" to murder someone who is going to die anyway.
Also, AIDS has been commonly associated in today's society (although more so a couple decades ago) with homosexuality. It was seen as a disease that only gay people contracted, almost as a punishment for their way of life. Bringing up AIDS reminds the viewers that homosexuals have been persecuted for years and it is important to get past stereotypes. We now know that AIDS is not a virus unique to homosexuals as we once believed. Similarly, the convictions regarding gay people we currently hold will seem ridiculous in the future.
1) I agree with what others have said. It’s a human reaction to say what could I have done to prevent this after a terrible event. They feel guilty, but how could they have suspected that anything like that would happen there? Matthew Shepard was a was a wakeup call for all those people who thought that everything was fine in Laramie. I think everyone in Laramie is guilty to some extent because they created this community in which two local boys thought it would be okay to brutally beat a gay person. I don’t want to take the blame from the boys, they are undoubtedly guilty, but the society is to blame too.
ReplyDelete2) Most of the town is shocked that two of their own could possibly do this. They don’t seem to understand that if they were brought up to think that being gay is bad, then they might eventually act on that idea. However, they are even more shocked/hurt that they might have to put these two local boys to death.
1) I agree with what everyone said about how people don't step in because they are afraid. They are afraid that if they jump in, they themselves might be targeted and/or have their reputations ruined. Their interference might put themselves at risk, and even if they know what is happening is wrong, it is self-preservation that prevents many people from helping. I think everyone knows that they SHOULD help, it is just a matter of actually putting that thought into action. By standing idly by, you're just as guilty as the person committing the act.
ReplyDelete2) People in the community expressed astonishment that one of their own could commit such a brutal crime. Though many didn't necessarily agree with homosexuality, everyone was shocked with the result of two people's homophobia. Some wanted them absolutely put to death, while others could hardly believe that these two were the ones who did it, and didn't want them taken away forever. Like what Zora said, their opinions were based upon how well they knew McKinney and Henderson beforehand.
I will be answering the first two questions.
ReplyDeleteI think most of, if not all of the people who claimed that they feel guilty honestly felt bad about Matt's death. The only way I can even think of explaining maybe why no one stepped in is to compare it to a school bully picking on a smaller kid. No one wants to step in because they don't want to be the bullies next target. Or they are afraid that other kids (People) will give them a hard time, or make fun of them for it. I know this probably isn't the best example, but in a way it works. No one wanted to step in because like Olivia said most people there grew up thinking homosexuality was wrong. And going back to the school bully example, they could have been afraid that they would be the next to get "Picked on" if they did anything to interfere.
The town did seem shocked that these two boys could have done something as horrible as that to Matt. Many of them even had some sort of good thing to say about them, but that didn't seem to stop anyone from saying that they should get the death penalty, or saying that they wanted to yell at them for committing such a horrible crime.
1) I agree that most people didn't choose to act or didn't know how to act in reaction to the hate crime because of fear. Fear for their life, and fear for their reputation. The majority of the people living there were brought up to hate homosexuals so there was a specific reputation that they were "supposed" to have.
ReplyDelete3) I don't think it was necessary for AIDS to be brought up in this case, however I am not surprised that it was. Although now we know that any human can have AIDS a long time ago, people thought only gay men could have it/spread it/contract it etc.
1) I agree with what everyone has been saying. It is a human instinct for a person to have the "what if?'s'" if someone they know dies. They feel like they should have known what was happening and been able to stop it, like the bartender. He felt like he should have known that guys like Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson didn't hang around with guys like Matthew. But he was raised in an environment that made homosexuals out to be bad and seen as "sinful". The fact that Matthew died, like Alex FJ said, is Henderson and McKinney's fault, but it is also society's fault.
ReplyDelete3)I feel like the fact that Matthew had AIDS was unnecessary. Sterotypically (like everyone has said) AIDS is a disease that gay men get, so by saying that Matthew had it just adds another label to a murder that already had many labels attached to it. There was no point to say that Matthew had AIDS, it just added to the idea that only homosexual people could get AIDS.
2.) Some people have said that Henderson sounded very compassionate and remorseful for his actions that night, but I do not agree with this. You can't tell if someone feels guilt and regret for what they did based on their statement to court because he is trying to do what he can do to not be in jail for life! So what he appears to feel may not be accurate.
ReplyDelete3.) I disagree with some of the comments posted on the subject on AIDs in this movie, I do not think it there was no point in mentioning it. I think by making it public that Matt had the virus, we were able to hear even more honest responses from the citizens of Laramie. For example, one of the women being interviewed said that Matt was not the hero he is made out to be because he was not a good character because he spread AIDS. Hearing this brings even more understanding to the prejudice and discrimination in Laramie.
1)I think people felt the personal guilt but still didn't step in because of, what everyone else is saying,fear. I think people are uncomfortable with homosexulality. I don't think they knew how to deal with type of crime and don't want to be accused of it. I think in this town being homosexual is seen by the majority as a "sin" and people didn't know how to speak out. They are just afraid of being associated with it.
ReplyDelete3)I think that the reason AIDS was brought up was because it was/is a stereotype related to homosexuals. I honestly don't think it had a huge impact in the case but like leah said it shows us that what is said today will look ridiculous later on in life when we learn and discover new things.
1. Like many others have said, I feel that many people feel like they did not step in to stop the crime because of an irrational fear. Many of them feared that their reputaion would be lost and that they might be discriminated against for helping a gay person. Laramie was not a town that was accepting of homosexuals and the gay people in town had to live discreetly without letting people know they are gay.
ReplyDelete3. I think the only reason the idea of AIDS was brought up is because AIDS is seen as a "gay person's" disease. Like Annie said, saying that Matthew had a AIDS only makes the situation worse. It adds another label to gay. Also, if the police officer did not have open cuts on her hands and was not touching Matthew's blood(which might have been unpreventable, seeing that she had to save him and he was bound to the fence), the fact that Matthew had AIDS would be as important.
1. I think in any incident where death is involved with someone you'd just seen, feelings of guilt in not stopping things are natural. When something happens so close to us (the bartender's experience) we often think what we could have done do prevent it. i personally don't think in that moment anyone could have stopped the crime but the murderers themselves. if we place the blame on a more global spectrum, the parents of the murderers could have taught their children tolerance, and their grandparents could have been more tolerant..etc. In that moment when matthew was leaving with the two men, the bartender really had no way of knowing what the two men were planning to do.
ReplyDelete3. I think people brought up AIDS to deflect some of the attention off the murderers. to bring to light that matthew was "not a saint", which was completely irrelevant. regardless of what kind of life matthew lived or what kind of infection he had doesnt take away from the fact that he was brutally murdered for nothing other than being gay. The fact hat he had AIDs seemed to have made some people in laramie less sympathetic, but in ideal circumstances that should not have effected the trial.
1) Yes, a lot of people did express guilt over what happened to Matt but many of the things that caused the guilt were unreasonable to think could be taken back. For instance, the bartender regretted looking down to do dishes for 30 seconds. That is not a realistic thing to expect someone to take back. The man who found Matthew regretted having the images of Matthew playing repeatedly in his head.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to guess who really regretted things that were realistic it would be what the perps did (or at least one of them). One clearly regretted what he did, or acted like it. I think he did because he didn't realize how big the impact would be. He watched jurors, his fellow neighbors, tell him they would sentence him to death. He saw his actions turn into a notorious hate crime that disrupted and disturbed the whole nation. He regretted it because he did not know the magnitude to which the crime would impact.
3) Like Adrienne said, I think AIDs was mentioned in the movie to show how feared a disease it is. It is clearly labeled as "the gay disease" and was a reason why people further hated gays and lesbians, besides the living a different lifestyle part. In addition it some how portrayed that in a way, gay people are not only disliked by tsome ownsfolk in Laramie, they are feared. It doesn't justify what was done to Matthew, but it certainly does show why some people may feel the way they feel about gay people. In addition, it brought into light the rape that happened to Matthew in high school and more atrocities upon his life (or at least Ms. Jackie Ruback told us those facts)
2. The person whose trial was first, Henderson, seems to have been much less disliked in the community compared to the second of the murderers. They didn't really seem to put up much of an argument about his trial, where as the trial for McKinney at least had some resistance from his relatives. The community's view seems split. Family thinks the men were good people, mostly, childhood friends are reluctant to put them to death, and to most others it seems they were known as being ruthless, like the bartender said in yesterday's installment of the video.
ReplyDelete3. The AIDs issue was a factor that really effected the officer that dealt with the crime, since she had a chance of getting the virus. The play obviously had to reveal that part to successfully include the impact it had on her, but also, the whole community. AIDs is frequently thought of as the "gay disease," but it seems that nobody in the community really thought of it, other than from the safety "we have to keep this blood separate" standpoint. It didn't effect their efforts to save Matthew, or their support of him, at all.
I definitely think that feelings of guilt are normal after someone was close to a death. It’s so natural to go down the “I could have, should have, would have…” path and reflect on what happened and what could have been done to stop it. In this case however, I don’t think that anyone could have really stopped what happened because they were completely unaware. The only people that could have stopped it were the murderers themselves and unfortunately they did not do so. I agree with Jackie in that if we were to place the blame on a more global spectrum, the people of Laramie should have been brought up differently by teaching tolerance and acceptance. In general, I think that people don’t get involved in issues that they know are wrong because they fear for what might happen to them or how they might be perceived. Sometimes people have to just stop thinking about the consequences of themselves and start thinking about what is right and how to stand up for what is right by taking action.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question three, I think that the issue of AIDS that was brought up didn’t even need to be mentioned. I realize that it was said simply because of the stereotype related to homosexuals, however I don’t believe that it has any impact on the case whatsoever. It just adds to the issue that this was a hate crime against gay people which we obviously already knew.
1. As Alex said, most of the people in the docu-drama couldn't have possibly taken direct action to help Matt, considering they were never witness to the event, or even had an idea of what would happen. The obvious exception was the bartender--but I think that even he had only a minimal role. He sees three men leave the bar, together, seemingly of their own volition. Even if he had his misgivings, what could he have done?
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I feel like preventive action in such matters of hate/prejudice/discrimination is just as important--if not more so--as direct interference. Education and tolerance are key, and I don't mean just a token nod to marginalized groups. Hate in itself might be natural, but hate directed toward specific people/groups is taught, inherited from the people who raise us and the place(s) where we grow up. We have to teach our children to love their neighbors, rather than fear or hate; be good examples, and practice what we preach.
2. The community's perception of McKinney and Henderson appeared to be largely a sort of collective, "Oh my gosh how could this have happened well we certainly don't raise our children like that around here!" Which is almost pathetically defensive in some cases, because most of the people are adamant in emphasizing that they themselves would certainly never do (or condone) such an act.
The reactions that actually moved me were those of heartfelt pain and sympathy--over what Matt had suffered, over the fact that now these two young men were members of the Laramie community, too. I especially like what the Priest said that McKniney and Henderson should have a chance to tell their stories, to be teachers to us, tell us how it was that they grew up to become people capable of such hate and brutality--primal fear, instinct, something we're all capable of at some very basic level, but which we've (hopefully) learned to control and not direct at our fellow human beings.
2. In the community, there is definitely a range of perceptions of McKinney and Henderson. The people who knew them growing up seem to think of them as just normal kids-and how could they not? If someone I was friends with in elementary school or middleschool got convicted for a crime like this, I would of course be upset and angry, but it would also be hard to listen to or understand what truly happened. At the same time, there are a lot of people in the community who are angry to the core, and think that they should no doubt be put to death. There are also people who feel embarrassed or personally responsible for allowing the crime to happen.
ReplyDelete3. It really bothers me that the AIDS thing came out. Like everyone has been saying, it is sort of labeled as a gay disease, and as such not only stigmatizes the crime, but also changes people's perceptions of the whole event. There was this one woman who they interviewed that said something like: of course no one deserves that, but the media is making matthew out to be a saint, and he wasn't. And one of her reasons for why matthew isn't a saint is the whole AIDS thing. I think she even accuses him of spreading it. Of course, it's so untrue, because he probably got it when he was raped, and even if he had known he was infected, he could not have prevented potentially spreading it while unconscious. Still, just the idea that he had AIDS seems to be people's way of somehow rationalizing this awful thing.
I think that people don't step in to stop hate crimes or any kind of discrimination for that mater is because of fear. Whether it is the fear of criticism or the fear of the actualy person, it stops people from doing the right thing. Many people don't do anything because they are afraid of what others will think of them. Also, if it is a hate crime againt a certain group of people, they themselves may also dislike the people, and don't want to be grouped with them.
ReplyDeleteThe two murderers in this case were viewed very differently by the public and the moviemakers decided to portray them in different ways. Henderson was a little less hated i the community I think, because he changed his plea to guilty and had his grandmother go up and make a statement about his sentnce. Although what he did was extremely worng, I think he feels more remorse than the other perpetrator. McKinney was protrayed very differently. He was extremely hated by the publc because the court played the tape of his confession, in which he used many discriminating terms and didn't seem to show any remorse for the crime that he committed. I think that the public was able to find a little more sympathy for Henderson than for McKinnley
1. The people of the town did not step in to stop the crime based on hate because they had to worry for their own lives as well. People do not want to be associated with hate crimes for fear of being targeted themselves. Often times if a person defends someone who is gay has some other characteristic considered a minority, they are accused to being gay as well. I do think it is an individual’s moral responsibility to stop acts of hate when they see them, but I also think that is easier said than done. When actually thrown into the situation, a person will definitely second-guess what they are about to do. If all people were able to stop hate crimes, however, then they would not even exist in the world. I think people are also afraid of further offending a victim by saying or doing the wrong thing while actually trying to help them.
ReplyDelete2. Most of the people who mentioned the murders thought of them in the context of how they knew them. The landlord of one of the men said how she thought he seemed small and not dangerous. Also, one of the characters brought up how she had been a classmate of Aaron McKinney and had only known him as AJ. These connection make the men seem more human compared to the others who just saw them by their crimes. The judge, for example, did not have sympathy for Henderson even after his speech of regret. Some people saw the men as good people who had just messed up, and others saw them as horrible people from the start.
1. I agree with the people who have said that no one could have directly stopped to crimes. The only person who really showed guilt over not stopping to crime, literally, was the bartender, who could only see what he "should have done" in hindsight, and really isn't to blame at all. However, I agree with June that the real guilt of the town lies in their intolerance, however veiled, of homosexuals. Often the townspeople would say that they were shocked by the crime, and that no human deserved it regardless of sexual orientation, but would go on to assert that they thought homosexuality is "wrong." It is this sort of attitude, even when tempered by humanity and restraint, that planted the hatred in the murders and led to the murder of Matthew.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think that many people thought that the men were good people who messed up. One woman said that everyone on the jury, including people that Aaron knew personally, said that they would be willing to put him to death. The only people who didn't seem to completely condemn them were one of their girlfriends (or wife?) and their families. I think people did remember them as innocent, nice boys, but that history didn't get in the way of seeing their crimes clearly. I think where the sincerity of the townspeople's comments were lacking were when people denied that it was a hate crime, or tried to claim that Matthew "had it coming to him" in some way.
I am going to answer the first and third questions.
ReplyDelete1. I agree with what a lot of people have said about feeling guilty for not helping Matthew or trying to prevent what happened that night from happening. The bartender that saw Matthew sitting at the bar said, if he had not been looking down while pouring or serving the drinks, he believed that he could have stopped the crime- he would have seen the boys leaving.
2. I also agree with what Sophie Sommer said about it not being fair that AIDS was just from Matthew and that AIDS was perceived as a disease that only gay people had- which is not true. It is not just something that homosexuals could get, anyone could get it. Like someone else commented, the police officer had open cuts on her hand. However, she was trying to help Matthew- which was her job! She couldn't really not do anything to help Matthew, she had to do something- he was in a horrendous condition! She was doing her job, and the blood to blood contact could not have been prevented.
- I would just like to say that in my opinion, this was a very powerful and moving movie.
1.I agree with what others have said about it being a natural reaction to feel guilty about something that happened. I don't believe that any of these people could have actually stopped the murder from happening because of the circumstances of the event. I feel that everyone has a responsability to speak out about what they think is wrong and to try to stop a hateful act.
ReplyDelete3. I think that AIDS was brought up because AIDS is thought of as a gay disease, even more when this happened. It was also brought up by townspeople to try to put some of the blame on Matthew and to make it seem like he was a bad person and that he deserved what happened to him. One of the women says something about him being sinful and passing aids around.
I think that today, AIDS is starting to be seen less as a gay disease, peole are realizing more that anyone can get AIDS, but the stigma is still there. It isn't nearly as scary today as it was even ten years ago, because people can live much longer now.
i agree with everyone about the whole its natural to feel guilt when a friend passes away, but it wasn't their fault that he passed they didn't even see it happen so they couldn't have stopped it from happening...
ReplyDeleteand the henderson guy well ppl didn't real seem to think he was such a good guy but the other one they thought he was nice
2. People who knew the accused found it shocking that they have done this crime. They believe that they could not do such a crime because they are honest, innocent, nice men. However, those who do not know the accused found this crime to be pure hatred and want justice for Matthew.
ReplyDelete3. AIDS is brought up because an stereotype of gay men is that they all have HIVS and pass it to everyone. People today still believe in this stereotype but also a lot of people are aware that anyone can pass AIDS/HIVS. If the accused had knowledge about Matthew status it could have brought stigma to the crime.
-CANDICE
The perceptions of McKinney and Henderson were different because they delivered public statements that differed in terms of sympathy/remorse. McKinney, while still loathed by the community, was regarded somewhat more highly because of his guilty plea and expression of remorse at his hearing. Henderson, however, pleaded innocent and claimed that Shepard hit on him and made passes at him (which obviously still doesn't warrant the crime anyway), while making continued, disrespectful and lude remarks.
ReplyDeleteAIDS carries a stigma of being linked to homosexuality and immorality. It was so intertwined into the case because when the innocent cop, just doing her job, got AIDS from the blood on Shepard's head and face, which caused a lot of commotion.
People could have stepped in but they did not know it was happening at that certain time in that certain place, people in general who knew him or lived in the town felt guilt because it was their town and the two perpatrators were raised in the town, so as a community they could have addressed the sexual orientation better maybe in schools which may have gotten rid of prejudice, but might not have
ReplyDeleteAIDs now is just a common disease here, it is somewhat controlable, and in the US not as many people die, but 11 years ago when this happened AIDs was in the US, not just third world countries, still an unknown virus, hard to prevent, so it was a stigma, because so many people were afraid of it, and what would happen to them if they were to get it
1. I agree with what everyone is saying, it is normal for someone to feel guilty about what happened, however there was no way that they could have stopped it. What the people can do though, is to speak up and make an attempt to not let this happen again, by spreading awareness. By speaking up people will eventually have to listen to what they are saying.
ReplyDelete2. I agree that it is unfair that AIDS was assumed to be a disease that only homosexuals had, it is not a fair accusation. AIDS can happen to anyone, it is not a disease saved strictly for certain people. Any form of bodily fluid contact to an open cut/wound can cause this disease to be transmitted. Like in the case of the police officer, who was doing her job to help Matthew, she could not have just left him there, it was her job to help him. when you see someone in such awful conditions if you are trained to help them the last thing on your mind, in the heat of the moment, is hold on I need to put on gloves.
1. In hindsight, we are all guilty for what happened to Matthew. But there is no way to know what is going to happen, so the people who feel guilty about not helping Matthew are only admitting their own desire to become more accepting--if they had actually felt a sort of caring for Matthew, as they would any other human, while watching the events unfold, they would have perhaps tried to stop it from happening. But since they didn't step in, they are admitting that, although not hostile toward Matthew like the murderers, they were unaccepting of his lifestyle. Our responsibility is to prevent these crimes from happening.
ReplyDelete2. AIDS was a stigma in this case because of what happened to those who came in contact with Matthew's blood. Matthew was turned from a victim to a criminal because of the fact that AIDS was spread during this case. It was something that those who hated him held onto because it gave them a reason to hate Matthew other than "because he was gay." When it became common belief that only gays had AIDS, it also became a reason to hate gay people. It went from "their ways are a sin," to "there is a real threat here," (although the fear remained the same, only people had found a way to cover up this blind fear with a reason, which was AIDS.)
I agree that when ever a terrible thing happens people feel guilty. I think everyone does it, they start thinking of all the times when they could have done something. People may think that they could have influenced the crime but I don't think any one could have directly made an impact. This is something that people as a community need to work with. No one action will make a difference. It is all the small actions and thoughts that will help to shape society. People need to be conscience of how they act and their thoughts towards others. If they see something wrong stand up for what is right.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised that they mentioned aids but i am very disappointed that they did. It is sad that gay people are labeled as having aids. It was especially disappointing that they mentioned it when nothing happened. The police officer didn't get aids. I can understand having it if she did, but she didn't. I think that this is when people should see that they need to step in and stop nasty stereotypes. The actors were trying to make a point of how directly the murder impacted other people. But this point is minute compared to the message that they sent out just by mentioning aids and gay in the same movie.