Personally, I believe that this quote is an extremely powerful philosophical dilemma. This dilemma also leads to another- "Can you still be a good person, without acting on bad things happening all around you?" This question has many answers, based on many viewpoints. What follows is what I think, what, deep down, my heart feels is correct.
If you accept the situation and do nothing to act against it, you are saying that you agree with the situation. Now, this may be good if the people are keeping a mutual relationship, but when one side is way worse off than the other, and the other side is not helping them or doing all they can to keep the other side worse off, then something needs to be done about it. Someone has to take action. If you are a bystander, you aren't helping the worse off side. You may not be directly doing them damage, but by not standing up for them, you are letting the opposition tear them to shreds! Now, when you stop and think about this, who is getting an advantage based on you not acting? The opposition are. Essentially, this means you are helping them, and by helping, you show that you agree with their arguement. The consequence of this is that one side winds up being hurt, maybe even killed. You may think that you'll never run into another Holocaust-like situation, but actually, you find smaller versions of them all around you. In school, if one guy is bullying another, the situation is the same. Are you going to accept that the bully can bully people? I wouldn't! Even if you don't walk up to the bully and tell him to go away, you can still tell someone else, like a teacher, principal, or any other adult with the power to do something. This may not necessarily work in war, since there may not be a higher power to go to, but you can still stand up for your rights and others'.
I may want to stand up, but when the lives of myself and my family are on the line, would I? Hopefully I would, but it takes a lot of courage to stand up like that. The people of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon had an extreme amount of courage, sheltering the Nazis' victims in their homes for years. They literally risked everything, just to keep other people safe. Why did they do it? There are two reasons. One was that if they didn't they would be equally as evil as the Nazis. The other is slightly more complex. A century or two before the Holocaust, the people of Le Chambon were also taken prisnor, also under attack, and knew how horrible it was not to find shelter. The empathised with the Jews, and let them stay. If everyone did things like that, the world would almost certainly be a better place, full of empathetic, kind citizens. I think that John Boyne, the author of the aforementioned book, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, tried to hint a little at this. Bruno could be compared to Le Chambon, the minority in a Nazi world, helping Shmuel. Although Bruno didn't knowingly help at first, he showed so much sorrow and regret after he lied to Kotler about Shmuel, that he started making an effort to help him. He also used empathy to realize what his best friend was going through, similar to how the people of Le Chambon were empathetic towards Nazi targets, as the people of Le Chambon had been through a similar experience. Although Bruno hadn't gone through the same as Shmuel, he said all the things that Shmuel said, and realized just how horribly tragic Shmuel's life was. His dad and sister, along with Kotler and the other Nazis, represent Germany. They tore apart the Jews, put them down and tortured them.
In the newspapers, stories tend to be uncommon, and therefore interesting. Now, going on this logic, since the newspapers feature people who help out, that makes our race one that is less likely to help out. One day, I would like there to be a world where the newspapers have stories of people not helping out, meaning that more people do, in fact, stand up for their rights, for others' rights. For a world to be like that, we need to "Start in small places close to home." -Eleanor Roosevelt.
I chose the image at the top because of its true portrayal of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. Bruno and Shmuel are like lights in the darkness, the chaos, that surrounds them. Also, the light comes from eyes, a major motif in the book. This also links into "seeing the light", in that Bruno only sees the goodness in the Jews after talking to Shmuel, without being under his father's Nazi shadow.
Image Citation-
"Eyes in the dark." Flickr. Web. 15 Apr 2010. .
