From an article called "Some Things We Know About Genocide - 10 Years, 10 Lessons" by Gerald Canter (website at http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?id=20739):
"#7 - Most ordinary people will be bystanders. Acting righteously in a dangerous situation is more than we have the right to expect from most people.
Activists too easily scorn ordinary people who simply want to live their own lives. NOT being involved in the crises of others is the default position for most of the world, and nothing else can be expected. It is no doubt gratifying to look down on the majority as ignorant, indifferent or self-absorbed. It is more accurate to think of them as unaware, busy trying to cope with life's adversities, and having their own perfectly reasonable priorities. For most, coping with everyday life is hard enough. We should give praise to the minority who always emerge to join a campaign rather than being disappointed about and scornful of the majority who don't.
As for the righteous, the surprising thing is not how few there are but invariably how many. The gentile who saved Jews, the Hutu who saved Tutsi, the Congolese women who stand up to their rapists, the Zimbabwean human rights activists—these few show a courage unimaginable to most ordinary people. How many among us would risk "doing the right thing" if it meant risking imprisonment, excruciating torture, or even death? How many would give their lives to save another's? It helps nothing to have unreasonable expectations of others when most of us would not act any differently in the same circumstances."
Why does Caplan say most people are bystanders? How does Caplan's assertion (#7 in his list of things we know about genocide) follow David Shoem's ideas about our lack of knowledge of each other? Would the result of better knowledge of each other be fewer bystanders? Why or why not?
About Me
- Rozmiarek
- This year marks the thirteenth year of my career with King/Drew Magnet High School of Medicine and Science, as well as my life in the Los Angeles area. Though I was born and raised in Honolulu, Hawai'i and earned my first degree in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Carnegie Mellon University) this school and its faculty and students have a very special place in my heart. It is my hope that this blogspot provides another avenue for current and former K/D Family members to discuss topics both academic and personal.
well i do agree with Caplan although i dont believe it is so much of a bad thing, because i myself am not that in touch w/what is going on aside from my daily problems. he is right, life is hard and its hard to worry about not only yourself but others and sometimes people you dont know; that does tie into the genocide in a way i guess because im sure while it was taking place there was someone somewhere that was not aware of what was going on. lastly i believe the knowledge of each other will limit the bystander count because we you know more people and become aquainted you cant help but be involved. for example, today there was an earthquake and it was pretty shakey. once the quake was over many of my friends texted me to make sure i was alright, if we didnt know each other we wouldnt have been worried hence .... bystanders.
ReplyDeleteREMINDER:
ReplyDeleteALL STUDENTS MUST MAKE A SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THEIR PRIMARY TEXT TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR ALL POSTS FROM THIS POINT FORWARD.
JodyB: Please use something you've read in your main text to expand your statement in order to approach full credit for your post.
Sunny Earle. wood. 6th period.
ReplyDelete"Most ordinary people will be bystanders"
This is very true. Most "ordinary" people will indeed be bystanders. But is it right to expect EVERY SINGLE person to interfere in problems or situations that are not their own. I think that to even think that is selfish. People go through problems of their own, and if Joe from down the street, who is losing his house, has no job, no money, and no means in which to support his family, came to the aid of Jane simply because she lost her phone, Joe would be adding more to his already full plate. I hope that my analogy (is that an analogy lol) didn't get confused or lost...I think the point that I'm trying to get at, is that if people added other peoples' problems to their own someone would surely go crazy or die from adding unneccesary burdens. Not that I'm saying its wrong for someone to get help someone in need even if they don't know the person, I'm not saying that at all, but at the same time people need to choose their battles.
Mr. Jarvis told us a story about some of his neighbors who were causing a scene one night, he asked his wife if he should call the cops and she said to wait, the arguing neighbors ended up leaving together. Now if Mr Jarvis the "ordinary bystander" had called the cops or gotten involved, because he thought he was helping, he probably would have been told to mind his own buisness or could have even put his life in danger.
In the story "Life in the Brrio" from the book that we are reading in Wood's class, the speaker says how she felt safe in the barrio because she had no knowledge of the outside world. this is the case for many people, if you feel comfortable enough around certain people you will help them out. If one of my best friends was in a confrontation with someone and the confrontation had NOTHING to do with me, I would help my fiend. no questions asked, becasue I know that person's character. On the other hand if I were to see the same confrontation with 2 random people on the street, people i had never seen before and probably would never see again, I would continue to mind my own buisness. For all I know they could be the two biggest drug dealers in the world.
The point is that you can not get mad at people for being "ordinary" and not wanting to put themeselves in the center of something that DOES NOT INVOLVE THEM. That doesn't make them "ordinary" that just makes them SMART.
I agree with Caplan that people struggle through everyday life. Not many people would take the risk in being honest because they are afraid of the consequences. Bystanders are other people getting involved with someone else's business. If people were not so "nosy" with other people's situations then they won't get caught up in things that can cause harm to themselves or another person.
ReplyDeleteb.brewer.wood.per.6
ReplyDeleteignorance is bliss right?
a lot of times people dont walk into certain encounters because if soething were to happen in that particular enconter, they would want to say, "oh i didnt even know." these are some of the bystanders Caplan refers to. people who dont want anything to do with someone elses issues because they have their own. "For most, coping with everyday life is hard enough. We should give praise to the minority who always emerge to join a campaign rather than being disappointed about and scornful of the majority who don't."
this follows Shoem's statement about our lack of knowledge because many times people dont step outside theirselves to show concern about another person, especially if that person is of another race, and whats worse is is that many times, they dont even WANT to step outside of theirselves because, sadly, they could really care less.
the result of knowledge of each other would most definately be fewer bystanders because once people know about something, it becomes harder and harder to deny that fact then a care develops and someone decides to take action, then we have a bandwagon of people taking action and the bystanding rate becomes minimal.
JODYB: totally agreeable, and many times we as people are exactly as you and Caplan described just worrying about ourselves, however that is apart of the huge change that needs to take place in our society. and i agree with what you said about bystanders, its as i said earlier, when people know about something, they cant deny it, and without denial comes a care for the person or subject and with care comes action.
I agree with Gerald Canter when he says "Most ordinary people will be bystanders." because it is very true. Most people will remain bystanders during a dangerous situation, for example; if an "ordinary" person was walking down the street and seen two random people arguing, that person would not get involved. The reason I think this happens alot is because "Activists too easily scorn ordinary people who simply want to live their own lives. NOT being involved in the crises of others is the default position for most of the world, and nothing else can be expected." Caplan's assertion follows Shoem's ideas because if we knew more about a particular confrontation or something, we would possibly get involved.I dont think the knowledge of others would reduce the number of bistanders, reason being that a majority have the notion that if it isn't happening to them, then they don't care or it's none of their business. This reminds me of "Why people don't complain" by William Buckley, because in his essay, he mentions that people fear confrontation. Since that seems to be true based on generalizing people as a whole and not seperating them to catagories, it could happen on a much larger scale, such as genocide. Basically, people are scared to speak up, not only for themselves, but others as well, or they expect someone else to do it for them.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Sunny and Ariel...
Sunny- I agree with you on that, if my best friend got into an argument, I would get involved, but if some random people I didn't know were in the same situation, I would continue to mind my own business. The part about Mr. Jarvis' situation was a great example of why people remain to be bystanders, they don't know how a person would react if they got involved, so they remain silent.
Ariel- All I have to say about yours is that what you said was true. "If people were not so "nosy" with other people's situations then they won't get caught up in things that can cause harm to themselves or another person."
Davonte Lockett
ReplyDeleteCaplin says that most people are bystanders because most people care about sterotypes gosip and rumors. I think that the lack of knowledge we humans have of each other may cause bystanders to "STAND" out so much. The more knowledge we have on each other would matter because of what i read from Brooke's response, the less we know about someone "it becomes harder and harder to deny that fact then a care develops and someone decides to take action, then we have a bandwagon of people taking action and the bystanding rate becomes minimal." This response by Brooke took the meaning, not diction, right out of my mouth.
Caplin says, "How many people would risk doing the right thing?." The answer to that is very few because if there were many people doing the right thing the crime rate, discrimination rate, and bystanding rate would tremendously drop to a level of pre-extinction.
Rumors and gossips are teenagers best friends and we all have to admit we love it. Caplin says"Most ordinary people will be bystanders. Acting righteously in a dangerous situation is more than we have the right to expect from most people".Telling the truth when we are in DANGER is scary especially facing the consequences.Everybody in this world struggles one way or another but some people have it worse then others. Some people can overcome their struggles but some can't. "How many people would risk doing the right thing?" I think we all can do the right thing is that we choose not to. Everything in life is made up of choices now the problem is if you want to face the consequences.The book that I am reading "We wish to inform you that tommorow we will be killed with our families" also tackles on this issue. The Tutsis had no stable home to stay at because the Hutus always came after them. One of the Tutsis said " I AM NOT GOING TO RUN, I DID THAT MY WHOLE ENTIRE LIFE AND NOW I AM WAITING FOR MY DEATH."
ReplyDeleteI think what people are skirting around in their discussion of whether or not to involve themselves is: When is it a MUST to intercede? When is enough, enough? Where is the balance between letting others sort it out amongst themselves (an adult concept) and being obligated to step in (a concept so selfless that it seems almost childlike - not childish)and do what's right?
ReplyDeleteSo many people posted to the first blog prompt that they are disgusted by "horrible thing"s like genocide and they "can't believe it happened" or still happens, but in the same month will write that it's (basically) okay not to get involved...unless you know someone personally. Where's the truth in this contradiction -- or is it just nice stuff to type in response to a required blog project?
Here's a poem for thought:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
~Pastor Martin Niemöller
Ooooohhhh Yesterday for homework, Mr. Jarvis told us (Mr. Woods students) to read pgs. 46- 49 and it discribed all of the possible discrimination towards Jews during the 4th- 16th centuries. I thought that this could tie into what Caplan says about bystanders because many discriminators during these hard times made Jews become bystanders.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh okay, I understand what you are getting at Ms. Rozmiarek, Mr. Segal, and Mr, Wood. It's kind of complicated to explain when someone should step in or remain a bystander, but I will explain it the best I can. I think that balance comes into effect depending on the person a situation runs by. For example, if you were alone, and you came across two random people, you should not get involved, because you dont know what those people are capable of. They could either listen or put your life in danger. A counterexample of this (when you should get involved) could be if the U.S was aware of a genocide, we should not stand by and not get involved. The reason I used this particular example is that, the U.S has a army capable of stopping a potential genocide, saving the life of many people. Basically, you should get involved if it's for a greater cause, but if it's a typical everyday confrontation, you shouldn't. Also, thee poem you posted seems to reflect exactly what I said in my last comment. People expect others to speak up for them and they fear confrontation, which is why they don't speak up for others.I don't agree with doing that, however, I am guilty of doing that. The reason being is I look out for myself, there may be cases when I may step in, because I know when I should and should not step in. For example, When someone I know gets into a confrontation, I would step in and calm my friend down. I don't know why people tend to think that way, but they do. I don't think that will ever change, but however, I feel that people should be aware of when they should get involved and when they shouldn't.
ReplyDeletei agree with Caplan in a sense. Although there are many alternativs to this situation. It depends on the situation in particular. I might be guilty of being a bystander because i'm usually focused on my on life issues. Not saying if i see someone being harmed and i can prevent it, i wont! Absolutely not, if theres anything i can do to help anyone than i will. But say if there's a fight, no, i'm not going to go to try and stopit because its none of my business. That has nothing to with me, i dont know what happend, so its best for me to stay to myself. According to Shoem we as humans are guilt of only being apart of one certain group or clique. Which is true in many cases, but how would you feel if someone out of the ordinary wanted to jpin your clique? It wouldnt feel right, because the reason that they're cliques to begin with is because those indivisuals have things in common that brings them together. if they were ment to be, then dont you think they would've already been friends ?
ReplyDeleteplease excuse my typo's in the first bloggg i hadnt noticed there were so many, until it had been posted. Anywho, in reguards to Brooke Brewer's bloggg i agree! Sadly most people could care less about others and their problems if the person isnt anyone close to them. Which isnt fair,but its reality. Many people feel that it isnt their place to have concern because they might not even know that person although they would probably be a big help. Most people dont know how the troubled indivisual will react so they choose to remain silent. Which still doesnt resolve the issue!
ReplyDeleteI believe Caplan says most people are bystanders because it takes a lot of courage to stand up and do the “right thing”. Some people rather on look at a situation than to take part in it because once you involve yourself in a situation it is no getting out of it. For instance, if someone is drowning and you commit to saving them you can’t just say never mind when you jump in the water and go on about your business. I believe Caplan’s assertion follows Shoem’s idea about our lack of knowledge about each other because once you learn about someone you start to develop some kind of compassion towards them. It is like when you make a new friend you wouldn’t have really cared until you began to learn about them and who they are, so if anything ever happened to them you would want to help in anyway possible. Like in the book I am reading called, Children of Cambodia’s Killing Fields by Dith Pran the Khmer Rouge, villainous murders of children, men and women, would have actually learned more about the Cambodians they tortured, maimed, and starved maybe some of the soldiers instead of killing families would have tried to help them escape. The Khmer Rouge said the Cambodians were poor and were living in horrible conditions when in actuality they were very prosperous and I believe if they really learned and tried to relate to the Cambodians then they would have thought of their own wives, husbands, children and wouldn’t have done the horrible things they did. In saying this I believe better knowledge of each other would make it so there were fewer bystanders because we would all start to fill compassion and sympathy toward one another instead of hate and harshness.
ReplyDelete***IN RESPONSE TO JODYB***
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because I believe that we get so caught up in our own lives that we dont realize that other people have similar problems just like us. However, I find it sad that you have to know or be close to somebody for them to help you out. Just because you dont know someone personally doesn't mean dont help.If we all just band together for the good and lend everyone a helping hand then this world would be a better place. It would be no room for discrimination, racism, bystanders, and violence.
chaplan calls most people bystanders because they rather deal with their own situations and not be burdened with others. for example in the book character jeremie allows herself to be pulled a taste of salt by frances temple the into her friend djo's life. she has her own daily struggles but still helps him in his time of need. i must admit their are people like this in reality but in most cases people rather not be involved.
ReplyDeletesorry about the mistakes in the first blog i was referring to the book a taste of salt by frances temple, but i agree with montiera in todays society there are so many issues that people do not care to involve themselves in others problems. especially if they are not close to them there is no need to have any concern. i feel this is a bad thing because it allows people to overlook certain situations that can be avoided with a little more help.on the other hand it is understandable because noone wants to bring more problems on themselves than they already have.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei would have to agree with chaplan because i am bystander my self, but me i care about my self and issues first , but if i see others getting hurt or feeling down i would help that person feel better but things that dont involve me , i jus step away and continue doing what i wwas doing because that has noting to concern me. and to me it doesnt matter what kind of person it is, i would help them the best way that i can. even sombody i didnt know.
ReplyDeletemontiera - i agree with you because when you said " how would you feel if someone out of the ordinary wanted to jpin your clique? It wouldnt feel right, because the reason that they're cliques to begin with is because those indivisuals have things in common ' that is true, if somebody didnt fit in to everyone else that you are hanging out wiht, then it wouldnt feel right with that person around.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chaplan because most ordinary people just want to go ahead and live their daily lives without being bothered or worried about other people's problems that do not concern them. The ordinary person does not want to get dragged into the problems of another person unless they know them personally or well. If the ordinary person would get to know other people from other ethnic groups then they might feel some sympathy for them when they are going through a hardtime and would more likely agree to help than the ordinary person that does not expand their relations. One example is what we read about Jews discrimination in Mr. Jarvis class. No one wanted to get dragged into their problems and as a result millions were faced with racism and were murdered.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Davonte that the lack of knowledge of us humans about each other is what makes people only be bystanders ad never speak out for what is wrong.
I agree with Caplan because it's true, most people do not bother worrying about anyone else other than themselves. Sometimes we don't help people just because we don't want to bother that person or maybe we just don't care and that is very unfortunate. Caplan's ideas and Shoem's ideas relate because it is the lack of knowledge that make us bystanders.
ReplyDelete-I believe that if we had better knowledge of each other there would be less bystanders because we would feel more confident and actually try to help someone out.
-I agree with Pedro in that we will only help someone if we fill sympathy for that person. The reason why I agree is because it has happened to me. Most of the time I try not to get into people's business but there have been times where I see someone very depressed and I want to help that person out. I usually try to help someone only when they really need help.
Medina Murphy-Oats .
ReplyDeleteI had to read this passage more than once to really understand what it was saying. I have to say that I have a much better agreement with Caplan than with Sholem. He basically expresses what I've been trying to say. You can expect ignorance and blankness from some "[bystanders]", but you can expect incredible things from "the gentile who saved Jews, the Hutu who saved Tutsi, the Congolese women who stand up to their rapists, the Zimbabwean human rights activists."
If human had a better understanding of each other, I don't think it would influence the number of "bystanders" because I don't think "bystandism" is about the empathy of one another. It's more about human following their "every man for himself" nature. In dangerous situations, sometimes, the best thing to do is nothing at all because acting on it only adds fuel to the fire. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a bystander. Sure, maybe they would be considered ordinary, but at least they're smart. Not to say activists are stupid, because if you don't stand up for something you strongly believe in, THAT'S STUPID, but I would just call activits very bold because even though they go out of their way and sometimes even put themselves in danger, they stand for what they believe is the right thing no matter what. And they deserve to be honored and admired for that.
To me, Caplan and Shoem have two very different point of views on the human race. Shoem believes humans put in "effort...to know so little about one another." Caplan believes there are two types of people: the ones who aren't selfish, they just mind their own and the ones who...don't. And there is nothing wrong with either one. I agree 100%.
In response to Brooke and Montie's blog
ReplyDeletei think they are right. if you CAN do something to help someone, you would, of course, but for people to get involved in something that has nothing to do with them is a bit much. I think the main reason most people "bystand" or keep to themselves is because before they react they think "would this person do the same for me." No one wants to put out more than what is put in for them. That's why people are known to help those close to them becuase there is no doubt that if the situation were the other way around, they would be there for them.
In response to the poem Roz, Segal, && Wood posted:
I found it very interesting && it sucks that this is the way the world is, but like Montie said, it's reality. I wish I had more to say about it, but think about it. How many people do you know that would face grave danger or any danger for that matter for someone who wouldn't return the favor?
Briana Little
ReplyDeleteCaplan makes his argument about why there are by standers becuase of the fact that we don't know eachothother in race and identity to care enough to risk certain things for one another. He says the majority are too stuck in their own world, on the other hand the minority will actually sacrifice for a cause, like Rosa Parks, was imprisoned because she sacrificed for the civil rights of aFRICAN aMERICANS. But can we honestly say that just as the majority ethnicty wouldnt sacrifice for us, would the minority sacrifice for the majority as well. Because of our past times, our knowledge and outlook on one another has become flaky, and stereotypical. Like Shoem said, we "place heavy reliance on stereotypes, gossip, rumor, and fear to shape our lack of knowledge."And this fact right here states that we ignore one another and one anothers rights, and petitions because we don't care for the other race, but when it's our own we feel we must do right. But shouldn't right be done at all times. And can we expect everyone to risk lives for people, i can understand a common cause of the people, but for just people alone. I couldn't do that. Black, or white, Latino, or Asian. I don't think I'm selfish, I'm just being honest. Some races are quicker to save their own kind, and some won't do it either way. I mean would someone risk heir life for me, honestly. My dad is a fireman and he does these things, risking his life for people who never met. How, or why, I ask everyday, because he has us at home waiting every night, wondering if hes going to come back, if he has been hurt y too many gasses. It's a achain reactin of saving one life, but killing my dads and our families. "How many among us would risk "doing the right thing" if it meant risking imprisonment, excruciating torture, or even death? " I wonder why he puts doing the right thing in quotations. aS If he doesn't believe it is. I wonder what he would do if a man was wondering in the street, intoxicated because he got a divorce. Would he jump in front of the bus, or yell to move. What would we all do?
Briana Little in respones to Medinas,
ReplyDeleteWow! I ead this blog 3 times. Yes, I see where your coming from on the stand byers, and the activists. Both are 100% right to do what they do. I mean you can't get mad at somebody for not risking their lives, i don't its being "every man for themselves", I just think it's thinking deeper into, I died, risked college, my future family the tears of my current family, a career, a stand for world peace, to risk a stranger. I'm not self-centered I'm thinking smart and natural. And activists as Medina said, are totally brave, I give it to them. Go on head. But I mean hello activists are fighting for rights, and standing for what they believe in, risking themselves, heir not simply fighting for people. These right will affect people, but they're are not initially fighting for them. "We should give praise to the minority who always emerge to join a campaign rather than being disappointed about and scornful of the majority who don't." All minority doesn't do that, they are fihting for what they believe in. Not just people. I can't blame the majority if they don't want to get involved in social activities, maybe they don't believe in them. Do we always get involve in theirs as minority, or only when its our own race at hand. Caplan me and you aren't totally seeing eye to eye. I more on Shoems ideas, sorry Medina!
Caplan states that most people are bystanders because in general people definitely focus on their daily lives rather than helping others in need. I am guilty of this “crime” myself, not saying that I never help people but most of the time I am focused on my own priorities. In the book I am reading, Taste of Salt, one of the main characters, Jeremie, is interested in helping the young boy, Djo, who has been seriously injured by a massive firebombing. This particular part in the book contrast Caplan’s view of “most ordinary people will be bystanders”. It shows that not all people are focused on themselves, but are interested in helping others overcome their struggles, obstacles, hardships, etc... Caplan’s ideas relate to Shoem’s ideas in a sense that if we knew more about each other we would be opened-minded and willing to help, therefore it would be fewer bystanders.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading Lindsey comment because her examples were funny :), but i do agree with what she was saying. Most people avoid certain situations because once involved life becomes more complicated. Personally, I'd rather let people take care of their own struggles, and I'll take care of mine :)
ReplyDeleteTaveeona Harvey
ReplyDeleteSegal
I agree with Caplan's view of people as bystanders, because most times we are afraid to take action in dangerous situations. This idea connects to Sheom's views because if we did take the time to know each other, we would stand up for another person instead of hiding out, trying t avoid the criticism and judgement because of our independence and sound mind. The Hutus were courageous enough to be more than a bystander in "We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families" by Phillip Gourevitch, and were the first ones to die because of it. They had enough bravery to stnad up against the Hutu ideology, unafraid of the hatred they would face later on. If only we had more people like the Hutus, maybe more people would be alive and not dead right now.
Taveeona Harvey
ReplyDeletesegal
I agree with Lindsy's comment on Caplan and Sheom's ideas. If people just had the time to just care and love for each other, hatred and terrorism wouldn't be an issue.
Brittany Taylor-Segal
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caplan's view about how people are bystanders because many people are afraid to fight for what is right. During my viswit ot the Museum of Tolerance I learned that during the Holocaust many Germans who felt the persecution of Jewish were afraid to speak out because of the mass murders of the resistant.
In the novel, "We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families" by Phillip Gourevitch, many of the Hutu people were afraid to discuss the wrongful killings of the Tutsi people because all who spoke against were gunned to death. Many remained silent due to their fear but knew the execution of the Tutsis were horrible and wrong.
Elizabeth Adabale Period 6, Segal
ReplyDeleteIn the past I have wanted to help with various social issues such as Save Darfur or the ONE campaign, but I always felt like I am just one small person that cannot make a difference. Today we went to the Museum of Tolerance and I heard stories of a scarce amount of men and women outside of the Jews, gypsies and disabled that knew Hitler was wrong for the genocide. However, few to none dared act on their thoughts because they felt tha their efforts would be in vain. However, in my book We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families: Stories From Rwanda, Philip Gourevitch chooses to not be a bystander and venture into the heart of Rwanda. Although he was not able to stop the genocide, his book revealed valuable information to the general public that could prevent history from repeating itself.
I agree with the connection Brittany made between Germans in the Holocaust and the Hutu in Rwanda. Both regimes were able to install fear into the general public to prevent any rebellion. As harsh as it may sound, history has shown that people are most likely to keep silent at the sight of inhumanity if it saves their own life.
ReplyDeleteBrittany Taylor-Segal
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brooke's comment about people being bystanders because they doubt if someone will do the same for them. Many fear to act out because they believe it will not be reciprocated. Some just feel that someone else will care enough to stand up to the person who is doing wrong. Many are afraid to be the hero because they would rather follow.
Caplan refers to most people as bystanders because few individuals are willing to speak up for another person's rights. Rather than acting and protesting or raising awareness in some way, people stand on the sidelines as observers to cruelty and injustice (as the majority of the world did during the begining of the holocaust & many other genocides). Caplans assertion that we are not to expect individuals to defend others relates to Shoem's argument of ignorance amongst people as it is a reason people refuse to defend and act riteously. The lack of knowledge of other groups causes peope to have the "it doesn't concern me" attitude as they have no idea what they would be defending. Knowledge of other groups may possibly reduce the number of bystanders through an introduced appreciation of different cultures or groups of people. This appreciation may be the key factor to getting other people to defend others that are unlike themselves. In Buried Secrets, Truth & Human Rights in Guatemala, Victoria Sanford is unlike these bystanders as she has taken upon herself the task of unmasking the genocide of Mayans in Guatemala. Though the genocide occured previous to her novel, it serves as the foundation to all the conversations, interviews and the relationship between her and her Ixil Mayan translator/friend. In the begining of her novel however, the reason people are bystanders is not because of ignorance, but because of fear. Sanford describes the fear all the people she interviewed had and the difficulty this caused in exposing the truth of what occured during the genocide in Guatemala. Even her translator, hid during an interview for fear of being mistreated by other Mayans and war guerillas.
ReplyDeletePOSTED BY: Ashley Ortiz (segal student)
A bystander is a person present but not involved. Most people are witnesses to things that happen, but not everyone is necessarily involved. This is the essence of Caplan’s assertions. The majority of the witnesses of certain genocides or holocausts do not outspokenly act on the situation that is at hand. Usually, when it is something as deep as a genocide and you disagree with the rest of society, you’re more then likely to be thrown into the field with those who are being massacred. In my current book, Children of Cambodia’s Killing Fields, Ms. Sarah P. Tun was lucky to get out of the genocide in Cambodia due to some bystanders in the International Rescue Committee who decided to save her and her family. It’s rare that a single individual as a bystander will stand up to something such as a genocide, it usually takes a group of individuals who are opposed to the genocide to make an impact. I know they say, it takes one individual to change the world, but not in the case of a genocide. Disagree with authority and you’ll find you’re self dead with the rest. Get a group of individuals, such as a interest group and stand up to what you think is right. Caplan assertion follow Shoem’s ideas about our lack of knowledge of each other by stating that the majority of us are ignorant, indifferent or self-absorbed. We only care about ourselves and the people who look like us. Bystanders however, will always be in situations such as these. Most people don’t have the courage to stand up to higher authority. There will never be fewer bystanders than there already are because even if you witness any racism, prejudice, or hatred crimes, you’re still a bystander. It is up to you to decide if whether to act at that point in time is the right thing to do or not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elizabeth, we as a single-person can not change the whole world. It will take a group of many individuals with the same beliefs who form an interest group to stop the hate. There has been times when I wanted to stand up for what I think is right, such as King-Drew having not at least one 'free dress' throughout the school year. The 'theme dress' days are not free dress days. They just get us out of our uniforms, but I don't have the guts or will power to stand up to all the administrators in the school. Just as I said, it would probably lead to me being expelled or suspended. I can't make change as a individual, but many of us probably can if we are all in harmony!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caplan because I think that people resort to being bystanders due to fear of being killed and therefore abide by rules hoping that it would be best to remain in that situation, rather than risk theri own life to do, say or act otherwise.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth's misconception that she is just one person that may not make a difference is very common amongst numerous individuals and stops people from becoming activists. I myself have thought this way before. However, this is not the case as most campaigns stress the issue that every voice makes a difference (as it does). The fear that one is alone should not be a reason to not act because it only takes one person to start a movement and others are bound to speak up after the example.
ReplyDeletePOSTED BY: Ashley Ortiz (segal student)
Kimberly-Wood- Period 6
ReplyDeleteCaplan says that most people will be bystanders because they have their own things to worry about, they might not want to get involved, or maybe because it had nothing to do with them and they dont care...or maybe its that even if they do get involved, they wouldn't know how to help.
"For most, coping with everyday life is hard enough. We should give praise to the minority who always emerge..." This quote reminds me of the portion we read called "Life in the Barrio" because there, they were expected to live a certain lifestyle,in which they would be trapped and wouldn't prosper... And if they tried to go against that by striving to succeed they would face harsh consequences.
Caplan's assertion follows Shoem's ideas about our lack of knowledge of each other because he says that people aren't neccessarily ignorant, but unaware.
drew2010- Its not being harsh, it's being realistic...that's why I agree with what you say because you are more realistic about it. To be honest, I'd say that,too. Not really because I dont care, but it's more because I wouldn't want to be dragged into something, or make things worse for other people by getting involved. I just wouldnt want to get blamed.
I agree with Brittany Taylor when she says that people fear to be the hero because it's a difficult act to endure. However, if there should ever be a crime against humanity such as a horrific genocide we should strive for a change and turn for another place.
ReplyDelete"If the pictures of tens of thousands of human bodies are being gnawed on by dogs do not wake us out of our apathy, I do not know what will."
ReplyDeleteUndersecretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan in 1994, as quoted in The East Africa 18 March 1996.
This quote made me realize that people have been notified about what is going on in the world. It's not like no one has knowledge about the Genocides that are and have occurred in the world, it's just that people do not want to get into others businesses. I think of America and how they act as if their "America's Police" but when they come down to it, there punks and wimps. No one has recently spoken out about the mass killings that are/have occurred in the world. Yet and still "we know it's a big problem and that it has to be fixed real soon before it get's out of hand!" Blaque!!!
In the book that I am reading the Darfur reporter (he was also a refugee and an escapee) was able to make it to the United Nations and was used for his great translation skills. He was one of the people that wanted to get the story about Darfur out and to have their situation recognized as Genocide. He was able to standout; he was one of the people that Caplan was not talking about.
Caplan called most people bystanders because when the people see the trauma that most of the world is going through, to limit the confusion, they stay out of it and keep to themselves.
In Response to Lindsey's Response-
I agree with her, she mad very interesting and funny comments and allusions. I feel that people will not try to get out of a pool to help someone, so they should not stop to help the other countries either.
Kaneca Pompey-Segal
ReplyDeleteCaplan says that most ordinary people bystanders because majority of people who witness or are aware of horrendous events will not do anything to object the wrongdoers of their actions. it takes an extraordinary individual or group of people to go against a powerful agency/government even though their lives or their families' lives will be at
stake.
in the book i am reading entitled Rape Warfare the author, Beverly Allen, speaks about her crusade to help stop the genocidal rape in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia spreading the word about the horrific crimes being done and trying to get the United Nations involved.
Caplan's assertion follows Shoems' idea b/c i believe that if you know somebody then you would stick up for that person if times got hard for them, thus better understanding people would result in fewer bystanders to some extent. there will always be bystanders, because people are afraid of the dangers that come with not following the crowd.
Today at the Museum of Tolerance i learned that not every German believed in what Hitler preached. those individuals who spoke out against him were sent to concentration camps and were murdered. individuals are bystanders because they are afraid of the consequences that comes with not being one.
i agree with Leti. People are afraid to die and they will do anything to prevent their deaths, even if that includes go along with something they know is immoral and horrific.
ReplyDeleteTHERE IS GOOD AND THERE IS EVIL....THERE IS KNOWLEDGE AND THERE IS IGNORANCE....THERE IS COMPASSION AND THERE IS INDIFFERENCE...AS I STATED IN THE PREVIOUS ENTRY, THE MAJORITY OF US HUMANS DO NOT GET INVOLVE IN "FOREIGN" PROBLEMS UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING TO GAIN. IT IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT KNOWING BUT BEING MOVED TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE...WE TURN THE OTHER CHEEK AND BECOME BYSTANDERS, SPECTATORS OF THE VIOLENCE SINCE IT IS NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTING US, HOWEVER ALL ACTS OF HATE AFFECT US INDIRECTLY BECAUSE THE HUMAN RACE CONTINUES TO GROW POLLUTED.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caplan when she says that people tend to be "bystander". People always try to worry more about themselves then the people that surround them. We care more about the outcome of something whether it affects us or not, than the people it will affect. We tend to accept facts that maybe aren't right. We seek the easy way of everything and sometimes we dont fight for wahts right. I believe that everyone is too afraid to defend oneself and stand up for oneself. we always care about ourselfs but not the others. And i think that if we analyzed our actions to the point where we are aware of who are going to be affected then many bad outcomes would not happen. Ex. : If people thought about what wars would bring then we would have less or even none.
ReplyDeleteI agree with stella when she says that "THERE IS GOOD AND THERE IS EVIL....THERE IS KNOWLEDGE AND THERE IS IGNORANCE....THERE IS COMPASSION AND THERE IS INDIFFERENCE...". We always get involved if there something that will benefit us. we dont tend to get involved if its not affecting us or beneficting us.
ReplyDeleteKaneca Pompey I agree with you when you said:
ReplyDeleteindividuals are bystanders because they are afraid of the consequences that comes with not being one. People are afraid of the consequences from the actions they make. They dont tend to stand up for what they have done and agree that what they do may be wrong.
CONT': HOWEVER THERE ARE THOSE THAT ARE WILLING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BEVERLY ALLEN, THE AUTHOR OF RAPE WARFARE WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE CRUCIAL ACTS OF THE SERBS TOWARDS THE BOSNIAN-HERZEGOVINIAN AND CROATIAN PEOPLE FROM A FORMER STUDENT WHO HAD RETURNED TO HER HOMELAND FOR SUMMER. AFTER BEVERLY BECAME AWARE SHE CONTACTED A FRIEND....A JOURNALIST FROM NEWSDAY(IN NEW YORK) WHO THEN CONTACTED HER TO ROY GUTMAN. GUTMAN THEN TOOK FULL COVERAGE OF THE RAPING AND THE ARTICLES BEGAN TO APPEAR IN THE U.S. MEDIA. IT IS SHOCKING HOW ONE PERSON CAN TRULY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THE BEVERLY ALLEN'S STUDENT HAD REMAINED SILENT IT MIGHT HAVE TAKEN LONGER FOR THE CAMPS TO GET COVERAGE
ReplyDeleteI AGREE WITH KANECA: the Germans who spoke out against him were sent to concentration camps and were murdered. individuals are bystanders because they are afraid of the consequences that comes with not being one.
ReplyDeleteTODAY AT THE MUSEUM I LEARNED THAT NOT ALL GERMANS SUPPORTED HITLER, BUT IN FEAR REMAINED SILENT. IT IS JUST HOW WE ARE SOMETIMES TIRED OF THAT BULLY AND HOW HE MISTREATS OTHER KIDS BUT IN FEAR OF BECOMING THE VICTIM WE RATHER STAY QUIET AND JOIN THE INJUSTICE
We are bystanders because we are scared to get involved in other people's issues. Of course, it is at times best to mind one's own business, but sometimes it is better to stand up for somethign and try to make a difference. In "RAPE WAREFARE: THE HIDDEN GENOCIDE IN BOSNIA-HERZEGIVINA AND CROATIA," Beverly Allen is informed about the difficulties women had to endure as they were raped and abused by avariety of men and immediatley she feels as though she should stand up and take action even though the event has already passed. Allen's drive to create change or atlesst bring awareness to the issue makes her contact a journalist who publishes articles about the happenings. Though many people would prefer to simply remain a bystander when informedabout rape genocides, Beverly Allen did something about the issue and educated others about the situation, stepping away from being a bystander herself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Martin. Most people care more about themselves and that is why they prefer to keep quiet about serious issues. We do not do what is right because were afraid of what will happen to ourselves and our family.
ReplyDeletePart 2
ReplyDeleteBystanders can standby, but if a bystander have a heart then that "bystander" will be replaced as a "hero". I'm reading We Wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our family and Hutus are known as the heros of the Tutsis, no longer the bystanders.
I can agree with mmurphy oats response about the negative emphasis Caplan uses to describe bystanders. It is up to the individual if they would like to be involved someone else situation, it's called "taking a risk!" Personally I avoid the word "risk" even if my grade was involved, i can't risk anything that means alot to me.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteCaplan says people are bystanders because they would rather mind their own business than interfere with someone else problems. People have fears of consequences, which holds them back for standing up for what they believe in. Caplan and Shoem's ideas relate because genocide was created by the lack of knowledge we have towards others. If we were more knowledgable about each other, fewer bystandered will exist because we realize the injustice of genocide and groups can do something about this problem.
Posted 4:14pm
According to Caplan's statement majority of the people are bystanders becasue they already have enought things everyday to deal with that adding something else that doesn't benefit them directly is a waste of their time. Due to "time wasting" we don't allow ourselves to get along or try to get to know other people; therefore we end up having stereotypes and being prejudiced towards others that are unnecessary because we don't know the person and only what they represent. If we all got a cahnce to know one another and give one another a chance then maybe we can decrease the numbers of bystanders of certain topics. yet there's still the whole issue of everyone being tolerate and willing to be unselfish and doing something the better of mankind. Unless we can do that first the number of bystanders won't decrease.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Devante we all are bystanders no matter what the situation may be. We all see, hear, feel, and smell things that place us in a situation that only give us two options become a bystander or become one of the few who has the determination to stand up for those who can't. To stand up because they don't agree with what's going on and make an effort to stop the violence and not to become a hero because you of all the people was the one to stand out from the rest.
ReplyDelete--Lorena R. segal-p.6
Caplan refers to those individuals who only observe and take no action against injustice, descrimination, prejudice,etc. as "bystanders." In the past and even today,most of us are bystanders whether we accept it or not. Not enough of us have the courage to stand up for our as well as beliefs and rights. We think twice about ourselves before thinking once about others. Caplan's assertion evokes that as "ordinary people," even though we may agree with an issue, or would like to become involved with such issue, we don't because of our lack of courage, setremination, persistence, knowledge, and the belief of having no power or voice on the issue.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to have better knowledge of each other, without being prejudice, there would be fewer bystanders hence we would have the proper information and knowledge that would boost our confidence, and keep us from doubting our decisions and ideals.
It is unfortunate to see how we tend to be selfish, and feed off of others misery to get what we want, to feel good about ourselves; we fail to society when we fail to oneerson or group. As Ambassador Morgenthau states in regards to "The Burning Tigris:The Armenian Gnocide and America's response,"[our] failure to stop the destruction of of the Armenianshad made Turkey a place of horror." What we do or don;t do will always lead to consequences, which get worst as we let them occur without speaking up about them.
Most people are bystanders because they are too afraid to take action. Intimidated by the guaranteed consequences and imminent reprecussions, most people rather watch while atrocities are committed than speak up and stand up against the villainous power. People are also bystandters because they are ignorant of the crimes being committed. It's uncertain whether or not the bystanders would have taken some action had they known of the crimes; however, awareness has a greater probability of inciting a response than ignorance.
ReplyDelete"The New York Times alone, often on the front page, headlines read: THE WORST WAS NOT TOLD, THE ARMENIAN ATROCITIES, EIHT THOUSAND BUTCHERED, THE HORRORS OF THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES...The beginning of modern human rights reporting had begun, and Americans were responsive" -Peter Balakian (The Burning Tigris)
Contemporary reporting aided by the invention of the wireless telegraph aroused the international community. Caplan's proposal that people are well aware of each other nullifies Schoem's theory of society's ignorance. Caplan states that people are bystanders not because of their ignorance, but because of their fear.
A better knowledge of each other would decrease the number of bystanders. Not everyone knows of the atrocities being committed around the world and that ignorance prevents them from taking action. Peter Balakian points out the fact that Americans responded after they were made aware of the Armenian genocide.
I agree with Asia's statement that we would know about each other if we were "open-minded." We tend to close ourselves inside a box, where we dont have the opportunity to step out and explorebeyond our horizons. We must be willing to accept ourselves, and others who are different from us, in order to be participants rather than bystandes and make a change.
ReplyDeletePeople are bystanders out of mere convenience, according to the author. It follows the previous prompt in that we are often too hesitant to concern ourselves with the affairs of the Other.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge of genocide abroad is for the most part pointless. It doesnt affect us. Very few of us lose any sleep about what we know is going on abroad--and we shouldnt. Its not our problem. We wouldnt have known about most genocides were it not for the burden of mass media. And even with our knowledge, very few of us will actually get up to do something.
In response to the teachers, even most people caught up in genocide dont initially care to act until theyre affected. The Cambodian victims were often indifferent or supportive of the Khmer Ruge...until they became targets. To expect Americans to get riled up over some 3rd world countries problems is nonsensical.
ReplyDeletePeople do not want to get involved in certain issues if it does not affect them and people do not want to learn about other cultures if it does not affect them. I feel that selfishness has a lot to do with these issues, if people were more considerate and compassionate towards each other we would not have such issues. We are brought in a world where it is stressed to worry about oneself and oneself only. We should only do things that are in our interest and that will benefit us. Don't get me wrong, we should worry about ourselves but sometimes people take it a little too far. I mean, we should definitely think about how our actions are affecting other people because after all we ALL are human beings and we ALL share this earth.
ReplyDeleteit is true that most people will be bystanders.If there is a dangerous situation that does not involve them , most people will avoid the situation and mind their business. In "Taste of Salt" Jeremie is a young girl who knos nothing about this boy named Djo but she yearns to help him. although Djo nd Jeremie were from two different worlds , she was smart , beautiful , a catholic student , and kind and Djo was rough , aggressive, and an orphan. The kindness that Jeremie possessed in her heart was genuine . she didnt care about Djo's past , she was only interested in his future and helping him. Even though Caplan is right about bystanders i think that if people stood together and didnt just fade into the background then maybe our nation can finally be one. I know that some people are scared to step in because of fear that they will be the next target, i mean look at the people that tried to help the Jews! they were sent to concentration camps too and most of the time they were killed. But the truth remains that they werent afraid to stand up and say that Hitler was wrong. Who knows maybe if they had more support things would have turned out differently
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with sunny! =).how can we expect every single person to get involved with everyone else's problems. If anything that would cause more drama and confusion. Also if we are going through our own problems and we try to help someone else with their problems then we are adding extra stress to our plates. i think that if you could you should try to help but take care of yourslf first. i know that sounds selfish but how are you going to be taking care of someone and your a mess yourself. That's not going to help either situation.
ReplyDeleteignorance is bliss, id like to think that people aren't as stupid as to be completely unaware of its nation's agenda or other people's misfortune...in regards to genocide, im conscious of this assignment's intent but to think that we should be even remotely concerned about a genocide that happened years ago that we had nothing to do with, is ridiculous. as i read about some dude that got shot in cambodia's killing fields, my mind shut down and i started thinking about metallica or something...i couldnt care less...
ReplyDeletei doubt that if i dont read about the holocaust now, ill repeat the mistakes of the past, and wage war against the jews. if someone did wage war against the jews AGAIN, i wouldnt act until the genocide affected me or someone close...
RESPONSE TO MARTIN FIGUEROA:
ReplyDeleteJESUS what the hell are you talking about...
learn proper english, no wonder you get 1's in AP Lit..."We care more about the outcome of something whether it affects us or not, than the people it will affect. We tend to accept facts that maybe aren't right. We seek the easy way of everything and sometimes we dont fight for wahts right."...umm ok... im trying to respond to that but all that my fingers will type are cuss words...
Teni Ayo-Ariyo
ReplyDeleteCaplan's assertion that most people are bystanders is true in every regard. Plain and simple...it is easier to just pretend something is not happening than to take action about an issue that is not directly affecting us. Sadly, many people choose the easy route. There are few exceptions, however, such as the Beverly Allen, the author of "Rape Warfare", who responded to the rape and deathcamps occuring in Croatia and Bo-Herzegovina even though she had no personal connection to the issue. Beverly Allen's hopes to bring awarenesss to this issue that was seemingly ignored by the rest of the world in order prevent such an occurence in the future.
In reference to David Shoems's ideas, if we had more knowledge about each other, it will make it more difficult to be bystanders and just sit back and watch as people were being killed. For example, Hitler falsely classified Jews as being a low-level race, and attributed certain characteristics to all jews. Furthermore, he blamed Jews for the downfall in Germany's economy, and initiated a "wipeout" of all Jewish people.If the Germans knew more about Jews, they would have known it wasn't in fact a race, but a religion, and that Jews played no part in the Germany' economiic failure. This would have prompted more people to disregard Hitler's absurd ideas rather than to accept them.
In response to Rafael's statement "i doubt that if i dont read about the holocaust now, ill repeat the mistakes of the past"...obviously not everyone who does not know about the Holocaust will ultimately go around trying to wipeout a whole race. The point of learning about past genocides, which you are clearly missing, is to prevent bystanders,and to prompt people to take action and possibly eliminate the recurrence of genocides throughout the globe.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Andrew Do, bystanders most of the time just watch whatever is taking place because they are afraid of the consequences it might result to and they just don't want to be caught up in everyone else's situations.
ReplyDeleteTo Teni Ayoyoriyo,
ReplyDeletesince you've so firmly grasped the point of this assignment, what exactly are you going to do to prevent future genocides? are you going to be "aware"? im sure the bullet-riddled bodies in darfur will greatly appreciate your "awareness". Or, are you going to tell other people to not kill other people? im sure you'll feel very fulfilled afterwards...
Segal sorry I am this late.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has lives to attend to, as Caplan argues, and it's difficult to assume we have the responsibility of advocating for human needs and rights. Caplan insinuates that people serve as spectators to surroundings issues, "most ordinary people willbe bystanders". Yet, I feel his statement is quite general in defining "ordinary people". However, the interests of masses, as he might support, doesn't concern protesting, feeding the starving children in Africa, funding for orphanages in Indonesia or dealing with international social issues. The average citizen of any nation, lives with the goal of establishing some form of stability, usually economic. Even the most eccentric are slightly egocentric. David Shoem would agree with Caplan, and most other people who commented him; unless we are directly affected by certain issues, we are more disposed to react. But even if events, such as genocides occur and have direct influence over our lives, we are still restricted to make a potential difference due to fear, pressure and even ignorance.Although, Peter Balakian's "The Burning Tigris" details on the political tensions of Muslim Turks with Christian believers and expands on the gravity of the Armenian genocide. Although Balakian might approach this issue with an American bias, due to the the involvement of the United States in this conflict, he emphasizes that not only the United States, but other nations, have the obligation to maintain the protection of human rights. Evaluating past events, such as genocides, serve to impede the repetition of same mistakes as well remind us of the capacity of man to do good and bad.
I agree with Erika. We are all bystanders. Fear, as she and Andrew contend, prevents us from making radical actions. It is difficult to leave our comfort zones for the well being of others, let alone people who aren't relevant to our lives and existence. Mass murder and the extermination of certain groups of people has existed since the earliest civilizations and as Rafael and Sal infer, we can't do much about the past. However, we can only grasp what we might have learned from history, to act in our own lives. We can't hurt anyone by attempting to tackle societal issues affecting our communities. Even attempting to solve international affairs is better than remaining spectators. Our global leaders can be futile in addressing the needs of the masses. (Gee, they are bystanders too). But, as individuals, we can TRY to adhere to these issues, even if we fail. Large protests can only do so much in altering legislation; however the act itself demonstrates our desire to see a difference. At least by trying, we can stop being bystanders.
ReplyDeleteWhen people do not comfront the issues that are being faced around the world, it is the not the activist's job to criticize them or called them ignorant towards the issues. People do have to maintain their own lives and have enough going on already. Shoelm's idea does contribute to people not taking a stand on the issues, but it is not the main reason why people do not try and help. Some people are afraid of the consequences. However, i do give tremendous credit to those people who did take a stand to stop the persecution of the jews and the attacks in rwanda. It takes bravery, courage, and soulful attempt to make a change.
ReplyDeleteMay 22, 2009 2:11 PM
courtney sykes said...
I agree with elvis's first statement about how the human race is dangerous because we refuse to tolerate others. If we change to accept individuals and races, the world can truely become a better place.
May 22, 2009 2:13 PM
Caplan says most people are bystanders because most of us don't take the time to enrich our knowledge about what is going on in the world. We usually don't pick up a news paper but we defiantly know what the Jonas Brothers are up to. What Caplan goes back to what Shoem's idea was of not knowing much by actually giving us some input about certain people who stood up for what they thought was wrong. To point out there there are a few people that notice that have knowledge of whats going on, but just a few people. a teaspoon of people.
ReplyDeleteThe result of better knowledge of each other would probably be peace. If we knew we were all the same. we have all suffered the same way we would probably live in harmony.
Like in Facing History and Ourselves (p.14) If Susie Phipps knew what kind of struggle her ancestor put if she knew they were hero's instead of just "colored" people then she wouldn't of been so devastated and gone through the trouble of changing her race from "colored" to "white".
***Response to Bryana Miller****
i agree when Bryana says "that people do not care to involve themselves in others problems. especially if they are not close to them there is no need to have any concern" because i worry about my family in much more than i worry about myself, especially when i am not around them. but if it wasn't my family then i obviously i am not worried or even in knowledge of what is happening to them.
Kanesha- Segal
ReplyDeleteI think the statement about most ordinary people being true is correct when regarding the individual. It is hard for people to think that they can make a difference when all alone… I think that people can easily be discouraged when no one else joins in their cause, perhaps thinking they are the outsiders and are therefore wrong after all, however when in groups people do indeed ban together to be more than a bystander. In The burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, the American people were outraged by the Armenian atrocities and were eager to help. The fact that genocide was truly taking place was not ignored or considered something that wasn’t an American concern: “The name Armenia was in the front of the American mind…known to the American schoolchild only a little less than England.” In groups people can break the bystander barrio and actually help others.