Can we afford to be just bystanders?

When someone is in trouble, you would naturally expect those nearby to rally around to help the victim. But as recent events show this is not the case always

As racist attacks spread around the US several gruesome videos of the incidents began to emerge. One such was the assault on a 65-year-old Filipino woman.

The security camera footage from an apartment building in midtown Manhattan showed 38-year-old Brandon Elliot approaching the woman and repeatedly kicking her even after she was on the ground. But what was even more shocking was the reaction of the security guards in the lobby of the building.

Three guards watch the assault from inside the building, then one moves forward – to close the door. 

The building management has now fired two of them. But earlier, a day after the incident, the luxury apartment residents released a statement in support of the guards, saying they were doing their duty by securing the building first.

Fear is the only explanation for the behaviour of the three men in the lobby. However, being security guards one would have expected a more pro-active reaction from them. A longer video later published by the New York Times shows them going out and talking to the woman and the policemen who arrived on the scene.

The question then is: at what point do you decide it is better to intervene rather than secure yourself and shut the event out of sight, out of mind. 

Several studies have analysed events when bystanders just remained mute spectators to violent attacks. 

One of the most widely-known incidents happened in New York in 1964 when a woman, Kitty Genovese, was stabbed to death. The story goes that 38 people witnessed the crime and no one helped or even called the police. 

The reports were later found to have been exaggerated as to the number of people but the fact remains that she was killed even as people watched.

Since then crowd apathy has been studied by psychology experts in different countries. A major finding was “more the number of people watching, lesser the chances of someone stepping up”. Most take a cue from others and remain mute, goes the theory. This “bystander effect”, according to the theory, diffuses responsibility. 

It plays out even during dinner table conversations or at the office when someone makes inappropriate comments, say experts. (Happens even in family group chats).  You know it is wrong, but you don’t want to object as no one else has. You keep the thought to yourself, not knowing that there others also who feel the same way. But, the silence lets the offender get away.

Based on such theories, many social and psychological organisations have come up with suggestions to correct the situation.  

“One technique is to behave as if one is the first or only person witnessing a problem. Often, when one person takes action … others may be emboldened to take action as well,” says Psychology Today. 

But in a study published in the American Psychologist  magazine in 2019, researchers examined over 200 incidents in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and South Africa. 

They found the “bystander effect” was exaggerated and that 90 percent of the time, at least one bystander intervened. 

Event though it’s unlikely there will be quick and right answers as every possible scenario comes with its own risks and dangers, it is good to know there are plenty of resources out there. 

If you are wondering what to do in such situations, just google “bystander resources”. There are plenty of groups helping out on issues ranging from school bullying to internet trolling.

Brings up the next question: what happens when a society as a whole is targeted? Like what is happening in Myanmar now.

Events there are appalling by any standards. The army has been issued shoot-to-kill orders and over 600 protesters have already died.

From Afghanistan to Syria (where fighting is still continuing after ten years and it doesn’t even make news headlines these days), what we see is geo-politics forcing countries into different camps.  

Will Myanmar become another Syria? All developments point to it. An unpopular military, mass protests, brutal crackdowns, rival nations jockeying for influence, and worst of all – armed factions who have been battling the military for decades.

The list of armed groups is so long that Wikipedia declares right at the top that it is incomplete and asks readers to update it.  

One rebel group, the Arakan Army has called for an alliance of rebels as a united front against the military. The Karen rebels have begun attacking military installations and been bombed in retaliation, sending refugees fleeing to Thailand.

The United Wa State Army in the north, supported by China, is considered one of the biggest non-State army in existence. Some rebel groups that consider the Burman majority and Ang San Suu Kyi as their main enemy have thrown their weight behind the military. 

The relative peace the country enjoyed since 2015 after 10 rebel groups signed a ceasefire deal looks shaky now.

The US and European nations have issued statement after statement but China and Russia back the current regime.

Like the security guards at the Manhattan building,  the rest of the world, especially the neighbouring Asean nations, are busy securing their doors. But can they remain safe if things spin out of control and full-blown civil war erupts?  

The immediate problem some of the neighbouring countries will face will be influx of refugees. Just like what Europe faced during the Syrian refugee crisis, this could lead to internal tensions within those countries. 

Even more worrying is the fact that Myanmar is known as the biggest centre of methamphetamine production. According to a UN report, the drug production and trafficking in the region in 2019 generated profits of at least US$71 billion, with methamphetamine accounting for US$61 billion. Yes, billion – with a capital B. And the current price of a pill in neighbouring Thailand is around 50 baht (around US$1.5).

If the warring factions are looking to buy arms, the drug trade, already encouraged by various armed groups, is bound to expand as it will bring them much-needed cash. 

So, even if refugees don’t reach their shores, the increased drug flow could pose a threat to many countries.

The rest of the world is like the residents of the Manhattan building, who felt they were safe when the doors were secured. Without realising that such street attacks if left unchecked would eventually threaten them too. 

As things stand many nations are just watching the goings-on in Myanmar, just like the security guards, from a safe distance. But how secure will their doors be eventually if this goes on?

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Please leave your comments and suggestions on the site by clicking on the reply icon at the bottom. Thank you.

Top Picture: Jason Leung/Unsplash. Second picture; From Social Media