Mini-Writing: The Bystander Effect

Mini-writing

Topic: The Bystander Effect

When you’re in a public space, perhaps with your friends or family, and you see someone struggling with a task, what do you do? Do you help, or do you simply wait for someone else to do it for you? This is called ‘diffusion of responsibility - or more commonly, the ‘bystander effect’. It has been proven that when in large groups, individuals are less likely to help another person than they are when they’re alone. This written text will be informing you of the concept of the bystander effect, and the possibilities for why it occurs.

As previously stated, people in large groups are less likely to help out a stranger than they are in small groups. This is usually due to the fact that when surrounded by other people, we feel less personally responsible for the events which are going on around us. In thinking this, we are passing on the responsibility to someone else. This doesn’t necessarily define us as bad people, or unhelpful, or even irresponsible, it is simply a common process of thought. For example, if you are in a busy shopping mall and you see someone drop their groceries, you more often than not instinctively expect that someone else will help them out, and carry on with your day. However, if you are in the same circumstances but the mall is empty, you feel more personally obligated to give them a hand. Whether it be out of guilt, second-hand embarrassment, or genuinely just wanting to help. Hopefully it’s the latter.

Another possibility for why this occurs, is overthinking. Perhaps you’re self conscious, or afraid that you’ll somehow offend them, or look ridiculous in front of your peers/complete strangers. Maybe, you just want to wait it out and watch how others will react to the situation at hand. This is in our nature, studying other’s reactions to certain situations. In saying that, we should try our best to break this habit - the world would be a much simpler and better place if we all tried to help each other out when we can.

Market Day Reflection

Yesterday the year 9 and 10 business studies classes held a market day and sold our products as a
part of our assessment in business studies.

As a group, we worked really well together - we came to mutual agreements with ease and our time management was great. Everything in regards to our business plan and the execution of it was done on time, and by the end of the day we had sold out and made a profit.

Not everything went quite as planned in regards to our financial plan - upon buying our products we
began to worry that we wouldn’t have enough mince or beans, but we soon realised by the end of the
day it was actually the opposite and we had gotten too much (not that it was too much of a problem
because we didn’t have any expenses due to the fact all our money was from sponsorship). We didn’t
book a kitchen area or try to find a place to cook everything prior to the day, which wasn’t a great idea
but surprisingly once again didn’t cause too many problems. Another problem was that we were in a
rush when our first customers arrived, and the way we packaged/wrapped the burritos was trial and
error for the first few we sold.

I think if we were to do it again we would do more with marketing - e.g print out more posters, etc. I
would probably make sure we were more prepared before the actual day so we weren’t running around
like maniacs. I’d also probably prepare for making more of our product than we did because we sold out
quite early and still had people coming up to us asking for a burrito.

What did the Treaty say?

What did the Treaty of Waitangi say?

Using the two versions of the Treaty - the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tiriti o Waitangi - and the main point(s) for each Article, discuss in pairs what the main differences are and then explain them in the following spaces. Then reflect on why you think these differences in perspectives on the Treaty would cause conflict between Māori and Pākehā.

People in our group (names): 

Article 1

Key Differences: 

In the English version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, article 1, the mutual understanding between the Europeans was that Maori were to give up complete sovereignty, meaning Britain had complete control.

In the Maori translation, this was not the case. They were put under the impression that although Queen Victoria was to be sovereign of New Zealand, the Maori chiefs still had control over their tribes.

Perspectives Causing Conflict: 

As the main idea has been lost through translation, of course both parties would act in a way in which they believe lines up with the treaty. As they unknowingly have two different meanings, Maori continuing to act as if they have control over their tribes may be seen as disobeying the treaty in the eyes of the British.

Article 2

Key Differences: 

In the English version, it was said that Maori could sell land only to the British. However, in the Maori version if the Maori wanted to sell their land they could sell it to whoever they please, but only if they offered  it to the British Crown at an agreed price first.

Perspectives Causing Conflict: 

The British have the understanding that the Maori are to sell their land to them and only them, but the Maori have been given the impression that they can sell to someone else if their first offer to the British Crown doesn’t work out. Because of this, the Maori may sell their land to someone else, (e.g the French or the Americans) defying what they agreed to in the treaty without knowing any better.

Article 3

Key Differences: 

This is the only one of the three articles in which the translations for both languages are consistent. They have the same meanings.

Perspectives Causing Conflict: 

However, this could still cause conflict. This article declared that Maori and Europeans all had the same rights - they were to be treated as equals. Yes, this is definitely a good idea, but it’s unrealistic to think that the British and Maori would immediately treat one another the same as they would their own. 

Why was a Treaty Needed in New Zealand - Essay

It is argued amongst historians that the cause of a historical event is more important than the event itself. The Treaty of Waitangi was a written agreement between the Maori and British settlers, signed in 1840. Due to various complications and conflicts between the Maori and the British, a treaty was - and to this day, is - required in order to establish peace throughout New Zealand and provide a common understanding of boundaries and laws for all. Today, the Treaty of Waitangi is actively recognised and upheld by both the tangata whenua of New Zealand and the New Zealand government.

The questionable behaviour and lawless acts of the European whalers in Kororareka were a large reason contributing to support for the signing of the Treaty. The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi allowed the British to establish laws and consequences for such behaviour, reducing the occurrence of these incidents and making the Treaty an effective and necessary solution. For example, heavy drinking - which lead to fighting, severe prostitution and lawlessness - was an unhelpful reactant in the problems effecting the people of Kororareka, specifically the Maori. As the British whalers were getting well out of hand, writing a formal agreement (the Treaty of Waitangi) was needed to decide on how people could and could not act.

The Missionaries went to great lengths in order to earn the Maori's trust and protect their rights. By working to protect the rights of the Maori and earning their trust, the Missionaries had substantial influence over the Maori and their decision to sign the Treaty of Waitangi. For example, the British Missionaries taught Maori how to read and write in Te Reo Maori, introduced new agricultural technology and methods, purchased and protected land on their behalf, and demonstrated considerable concern for the number of Maori being either killed, enslaved, or both during the Musket Wars. By making a conscious and active effort to protect the people's rights, the Missionaries had great influence on the Maori's decision to sign the treaty. The fact the rights of the native people needed to be protected - and this alone - proves that a treaty was required.

By gaining muskets through trading with the Europeans, certain tribes obtained power never before seen by the Maori, and immediately abused it, using these new weapons to wage war on their enemies. As more tribes hurried to follow in pursuit - trading anything and everything they could to get their hands on the guns and raise their chances of survival - a bloody and merciless series of wars began. These wars played out throughout the course of 35 years. Between the years these wars took place (1807-1842), it is estimated that more than 20,000 Maoris were killed in action. The introduction of muskets to New Zealand lead to violence and tens of thousands of deaths. As a result of this new source of power, the Maori population declined rapidly. Multiple wars were declared amongst numerous tribes, leading to many people losing their lives, and many more being enslaved. When muskets were introduced to New Zealand and traded between Maori and Europeans, it set off a chain reaction of violence, war, and inevitably death. If there were laws and regulations in place, mutually agreed upon by all - such as those in the Treaty of Waitangi - this could have been avoided.

But what came before the Treaty, surely there was something, anything? Well, there was. The Declaration of Independence, also known as 'He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni', was a declaration signed by a number of Maori chiefs and ratified in 1835. This piece of paper declared sovereign independence of New Zealand and created peace between Maori and Europeans. In this declaration, it was agreed that the two groups would meet annually to discuss current affairs/issues and establish laws. It also ensured that Maori had supreme power over the country and - for the most part - independence. Although the Declaration of Independence was effective in regards to fostering a positive relationship between the Maori and Europeans, it clearly wasn't enough to keep everyone in line and to keep everything running completely smoothly. They still required something more - a treaty.

This series of previous events and information demonstrates why New Zealand so desperately needed the Treaty of Waitangi. The Musket Wars, the inexcusable behaviour of the British Missionaries in Kororareka and the Europeans having considerable concern for the rights of Maori being violated - and rightfully so - all give adequate reasoning for why a treaty was needed in New Zealand. The consequences of these events were far greater. Throughout the course of the Musket Wars, tens of thousands of Maori were killed, all of which could have been avoided with a simple set of gun regulations putting restrictions on the ownership and use of these new dangerous weapons. The alcohol-fuelled violence and misconduct of the British Missionaries in Kororareka did not only lead to negative outcomes for themselves, but also affected those around them - more specifically, the Maori. The declaration - although it was signed by both parties - made little to no difference in regards to how both groups acted towards themselves and each other. If it weren’t for the Treaty of Waitangi, events such as these may still be a recurring sight to this day.

Maori and European Population in New Zealand 1836-1901

Maori and European Population in New Zealand 1836-1901

The graph below shows the population of Maori and Europeans in New Zealand between the years 1836 and 1901, and how the numbers of people change.

Why do you think the numbers of Maori changed?

When Europeans in New Zealand, there was a lot of conflict between the two cultural groups. A lot of Maori people were killed in armed conflict against the Europeans (the Europeans having more advanced weaponry).

Why do you think numbers of Europeans changed?

As time went on, more and more people from Europe migrated to New Zealand from wherever it was they lived beforehand (mostly countries in Britain, e.g Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England). Therefore the number of Europeans living in New Zealand increased.

Comprehension Box

Denim 4 - Stinkiest Jobs in History
1. The word stool in paragraph 3 means:
C - bowel movements

2. What part of the contents of human urine was useful in cleaning wool?
C - ammonia

3. The process of removing fur from a hide is the main idea of:
C - paragraph 4

4. What did the tanner have to do to the hide before removing the fur?
A - remove fat and meat

5. What do both a tanner and fuller use in creating their product?
C - urine

6. Which of the jobs did not involve faeces (bowel movements)?
A - fuller

7. If a man was walking the streets with a shovel and container, he would most likely be collecting:
B - dog faeces

8. You can conclude that the king ____ the groom of the stool.
B - trusted

9. Which of the following is a fact, not an opinion?
C - urine was used in medieval times by tanners and fullers

10. Why would the groom of the stool use his bare hands to wipe the king's bottom?
B - toilet paper was not used in those times

11. What cause the tanneries to be located far from the town centre?
B - the smells created during the tanning process were unpleasant

12. Which sentence summarises the supply and use of dog droppings by tanners?
C - Tanners soaked hides in a mix of dog droppings collected by pure collectors.

13. This text was written to:
A - inform

14. The pronoun them in paragraph 1 refers to:
C - jobs

Fuchsia 1 - The Elusive Scarlet Pimpernel
1. The word aristocrats in Paragraph 3 and 5 refer to:
C - wealthy land owners

2. The French revolution occurred because the common people:
B - were starving while the aristocrats lived in luxury

3. Madame Guillotine was:
A - used to chop off people's heads

4. The 'Reign of Terror' lasted for about a:
B - year

5. The novel about the Scarlet Pimpernel was written ____ during the French Revolution.
C - more than 100 years after

6. If an aristocrat begged for his life at the guillotine, the crowd would probably have shouted:
A - off with his head

7. We can conclude that the common people revolted against the ruling classes because they were:
C - desperate

8. The League of the Scarlet Pimpernel rescued French noblemen and women because they:
A - felt a loyalty towards them

9. The Scarlet Pimpernel was written as a work of:
B - fiction

10. It is a fact, not an opinion, that thousands of French nobility were:
A - executed by guillotine

11. An adjective which might be used in a summary of the French Revolution is:
C - brutal

12. In paragraph 3, the pronoun they refers to:
B - thousands of arsitocrats

13. Sir Percy and his wife's brother are similar because they both:
C - are in danger

14. The Scarlet Pimpernel was named after:
A - a small red flower

Rust 2 - Nelson Mandela
1. The word reconciliation in paragraph 2 means:
B - harmony

2. What was different about the law firm of Mandela and Tambo?
A - it helped black South Africans who couldn't afford to pay for legal help

3. Which words provide the best summary of Nelson Mandela's character?
C - wise and determined

4. You could predict any project Mandela supported would be likely to:
C - be highly successful

5. The main idea of paragraph 1 is that Mandela was:
B - an interesting person

6. Which statement would Mandela have been most likely to agree with?
C - violence should only be used when nothing else has worked

7. People around the world asked Mandela for advice because:
B - they admired his achievements and his character

8. Mandela was given the name Nelson by his:
C - teacher

9. You could conclude from the text that FW de Klerk:
A - also worked hard for peace

10. It is a fact, not an opinion, that Mandela:
B - was president of South Africa

11. The text was written to:
B - give information

12. The first thing Mandela did was to:
B - go to Johannesburg

13. Mandela was different from Tambo because he:
A - won a Nobel prize

14. The pronoun them in paragraph 4 refers to:
C - Mandela and Tambo

Creative Writing Matrix - Can you hear it?

Can you hear it?

Write a descriptive paragraph or poem about a setting.

The sounds and scenery can tell where a story is, how the characters are feeling.

Background sounds can be used to show where the character is.  eg. If they are at home in the summertime: the sound of a lawnmower

Every breath hung in the air as it escaped my lungs, the cloud it took shape in only visible due to the faint light illuminating from a nearby lamppost. Oak trees lined each side of the road, their branches reaching far enough to touch the sky, the bark encasing each one a dark shade of brown. Above, the sound of leaves rustling in the canopy of the surrounding trees was a sound far more welcoming than a nerve-wrecking silence. This sound was accompanied by the rhythmic click of my shoes meeting the pavement as I walked, and occasionally the disruptive rumbling engine of an oncoming vehicle, though it lasted no longer than half a minute. The faint sound of music and casual conversation could be heard from inside homes every so often as I made my way down the dark road.