# data[].attributes.body
Ginger Anderson-Willis

This quotation is about the conflict between individual self-interest and the values of a community. It shows that following the crowd, contributing to silence and indifference, can hurt many people. The narrator was probably afraid to speak out against the Holocaust out of fear for their life. They could not care for other communities that were being hurt by the Nazis because they were too focused on their own individual safety. If others had spoken out, the narrator probably would have too because they may have felt protection in numbers. It is easier to follow the crowd. It can be difficult to form an individual opinion on topics of injustice, but it is easy to conform to what others are doing. Both in the past and in the present, we look to our community, our leaders and our role models for how to behave in turbulent or dangerous times. For example, people are looking to leaders to help figure out their response to the COVID 19 pandemic. People are taking cues from their crowd and their role models to help them know how to react. This is a relatively simple situation because people just have to learn basic protocols; wearing masks at the grocery store isn’t very controversial for most people. However in situations like the Holocaust -where the world was aware of the actions of the Nazis and chose to do nothing- following the crowd and remaining indifferent can allow millions of innocent people to be murdered. In the case of the narrator of this poem, following the crowd was personally dangerous to them. It is our job to know when to follow the crowd, and when to speak out against injustice. Speaking up can be scary and dangerous, but following the crowd, as is shown in the poem, can be deadly as well.

# data[].attributes.body
The affects of following the crowd in the context of quotation is that you become a bystander, you are letting other be mistreated in front of you. For example if you are getting harassed or being mistreated and you see people just looking at you and not doing anything about it, that's the people following the crowed. They see that on one else is helping you so why should they. I do think that the narrator failed to speak up because others did not, the narrator chose to follow the crowed because he found no motif or reason as to why he should be involved, it didn't affect him. I do think that the narrator would have protested the arrests if he saw others doing it because its human instincts, if there was a group of people protesting they are most like to expand in population than if there was no one protesting. For example the BLM movement/protest, a lot of people where going to the protest and supporting the movement because they saw Influencers, famous people, overall a lot of people, going to protest for the rights of Black people. If there was no one at the protests an movements, no one posting on social media, or saying something on TV about it, no one would feel the nee to go or do it if they know it has nothing to do with them. - Allison Maximo

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, the affects of following the crowd are that you become a part of the problem. The indifference you showed towards others caused them to suffer immensely. People need to learn to break the cycle of indifference because if it was them who had been taken they  would’ve wanted others to speak out for them. The world became bystanders to the cruelty people were facing in fear that they’d be judged for speaking out for what they believed was right. I do think the narrator didn’t speak out because nobody else did because society has always had a herd mentality where it’s a monkey see monkey do situation. Since nobody spoke out about the injustice people were facing it was decided their suffering meant nothing. I think if others had spoken out then everyone would’ve joined in and tried to solve the problem before it got larger than it already was. Since herd mentality affects mostly all of society people would’ve tried to fit in and stop the injustice people started experiencing. An example i’d use is Kind Leopoldo 2nd. He bought Congo just so he could exploit the people and the lands resources. Nobody cared or spoke out about the slavery and brutality being displayed in Congo because the people were African. This went on for 44 years and it only ended after Leopold died. The indifference shown to the Congolese people was a part of history nobody talks about to this day. If people were to care about the massacring of the Congolese 15,000,000 men, women, and children wouldn’t have died. If a few people had broken the cycle and formed their own ideas about specific groups of people and speed listening to the teachings of their elders many tragedies could be avoided. - Dillan Dubriel

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, following a crowd can be harmful to you and others being targeted. For instance, when people see that others are suffering, they don't necessarily do much to better the situation. Awareness may be spread, and hopefully someone with the power may do something, but as long as it doesn't directly impact them, they will care less. This is simply human instinct. I believe the speaker did fail to speak up because he was aware of everything going on, and didn't do the least to help the situation. I think the narrator would have followed protestors if there were any. He sees that a group of people is standing up for something he may feel bad for, so he will join in only because it has already been started. This is seen in history and in today's times. In the past months, BLM protestors filled the streets and demanded justice. Others were so infuriated that they decided to loot stores and other went along with it. As soon as one person starts it, others follow. Not only this, but it has been reported that people were burning police cars, so other people in Santa Monica were burning cars in public parking lots. People tend to follow what has already been started and rarely start it for themselves weather this be a harmless act, or a not so harmless act.

# data[].attributes.body
Max Salkin: Following the crowd can cause more problems than solve them. This is because people following the crowd do not know all the information or reasoning and can make decisions that hurt and even destroy. I do think he would have spoken up if others did because many are better than 1 He also states "and I did not speak out because I was not a communist"(Niemoller) I feel if he were a communist or socialist he would have spoken up for people he groups himself with. The author did fail to speak out because He was a bystander most of the time as well as everyone else they thought that if they weren't being taken why should they care.

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, what are the effects of following the crowd? Do you think the narrator failed to speak up because others did not? Do you think the narrator would have protested the arrests if others had? Well the effects of not following the crowd would be being singled out, dealing with your own issues by yourself without aid of the crowd. I believe the narrative did not speak up because he did not believe he would be judged until he was. If he did not intervene with others injustice he thought he would not have any issues, but instead injustice found it because he did not speak up. If he saw others who protested without penalty maybe, but since he was self interested he would most likely not speak up if there were consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, the effects of following the crowd equaled indifference. No one did anything when they saw injustice happen to someone who wasn't them and that act of nothing was following the crowd. That led to the narrator facing what the other had faced, alone because now there was really no one else to turn to. It would have been more likely that the narrator would have spoken up if others had too because there are many instances where we feel ourselves making the wrong choice but our fear of putting our views out to be judged may overrule that doubt. Indifference leads to more indifference. Stepping out of the crowd is when the real change happens. -Janea McVarish

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, following the crowd leads to indifference at the sight of a wrongdoing, which can eventually affect yourself. I believe that the narrator failed to speak up because I believe that he thought that he might get outed for going against the pack. It is very likely that there were others in his group who thought the same way about the arrest, therefore I believe that if he did speak up, he might garner a small following that might help others understand the injustice of the arrests.-TJ Lezcano

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation the effects of following the crowd will that eventually you will be the one being faced with trouble. If you never stood up for anything or anyone you can't expect someone to stand up for you. The narrator failed to speak because he did not want to fall into a group that was being oppressed. He thought that if he did not speak at all that no danger would come to him. He could care less about the others who are being oppressed because he believes that their problems would not affect him directly. The only way the narrator would speak up is if he had others to back him up but he did not stand up for others so therefore he would get the same treatment. I believe that having a large group will definitely be more effective but it starts with one person ready to speak up without the fear of the consequences. Once you have that one person, they would start inspiring others to stand up and eventually you will have a large group ready to support. As for the Jews once they realized the situation they were in, it was already to late for them to stand up and fight. The Nazis were very powerful so the people who had to stand up for the Jews was allied nations. The allied nations knew what the Nazis were doing was wrong so they stood up and supported the Jews.-Keianu Jacinto

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the situation, I think the effects of following the crowd makes you just as guilty. Even if it doesn't affect you, if you see an injustice, you should speak up for the benefit of others. Although it's much easier to stay quiet and not get involved, since you were a witness, even though it didn't affect you, you are know part of the situation. If the author had been brave enough to speak up, more people would have followed, since it is hardest to be the first to speak up. It is best to try your best, and hope people follow, because not speaking up or taking action can have drastic consequences. An example of these consequences would have been the millions of deaths of Jews during the Holocaust. It is much better to take action as a group, opposed to everyone staying silent and letting it happen. -Case Rowan

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, the effects of following the crowd are extremely dangerous. Specific to this example, there are numerous studies that show the Holocaust couldn't have happened without the millions of people who were bystanders. As shown in the poem, this includes the author. The narrator failed to speak up because nobody around him was doing the same. It is human nature to avoid danger and fit in with the crowd. In this case, following the crowd led to the death of six million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Roma people. Though there was also a lot of propaganda against Jews, Socialists, and Trade Unionists at the time, the passage conveys indifference rather than hate. This suggests that they would have spoken out if others were. - Caitlin Polesetsky

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, the affects of following the crowd are that you fail to stand up and help those who are oppressed.  I think that the narrator failed to speak up because others did not as well as because he was not personally affected. It is also harder to stand up to oppression when it does not affect you. The narrator might have protested if others had because it is easier to take a stand if other are doing it as well. An example of this is bullying. If someone is getting bullied, many people find it easy to sit back and be a bystander rather than actually helping out. -Sahil Sheikh

# data[].attributes.body
The effects of following the crowd are that you might be indirectly following something you don't believe in, and your indifference towards others can lead towards their indifference to you. The narrator didn't speak up while the society around him crumbled, and then, when he needed help, there was no one in his society to help him. He likely didn't speak up in the first place out of fear, and because no one else did. If the narrator alone voiced his drastically differing opinions to the majority at the time, he likely would've been killed. However if others had spoken up, perhaps things would've played out differently, because it is much harder to eliminate an army compared to one man. This much has been proven, because when we look back on the Holocaust we see that as other countries put their indifference aside and came to the Jew's aid, things slowly started to look up
- Annika Budhwani

# data[].attributes.body
In context of the quotation, the affects of following the crowd in situations like this makes you part of the problem. By allowing others to suffer, you're helping those who are causing it. I think the narrator didn't speak up because others didn't, but also because they weren't after them, like the narrator said. I believe that they would have protested. Most people follow the crowd, and so if people started protesting, others would too. It is sort of the opposite of the BLM movement. Black people started protesting, and tons of other people started protesting with them. Maybe, if others had started protesting when the Jews were taken, others would have joined in and it would have turned out differently.

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, the effect of following the crowd is including yourself into a problem by watching others in pain without doing anything to help. I believe the narrator did indeed fail to speak up because others did not and that is the root problem of these types of situations. The problem is not directly affecting the narrator, so they feel as though, why would their opinions count toward a situation not involving them. I think the narrator would have protested the arrests if others had to, become its always easier to follow the crowd, then to lead one, and that's the type of mindset the narrator might have. The line "Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Jew", is a prime example of how others can sit and watch people go through pain and suffering without speaking out or up about it. I've personally been put in these types of situations multiple times and always try my best to speak out and voice my opinions for change, even when the situation is not affecting me. -Christina Overton

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the questions, what are the effects of following the crown? Do you think the narrator failed to speak up because others did not? Do you think the narrator would have protested the arrests if others had? I think the author failed to speak up and unknowingly followed the crowd without bad intentions. Many times we follow the crowd we disregard others struggles if it doesn't directly effect us, which I find wrong because everyone has their own valid struggles which should be cared for. The narrator was disregarding and failed to acknowledge other people struggles mainly because nobody else did and he didn't feel the need to. His unintentional becoming of a bystander drowned out others struggles as the dehumanization occurred. This is common, Many large courties directly ignored the holocaust because it didn't effect them or their surrounding people. In my opinion I consider what he did as wrong but I understand the context and the severity of including yourself in events nobody is talking about it scary. -Nicole Stork

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the questions, what are the effects of following the crowd? Do you think the narrator failed to speak up because others did not? Do you think the narrator would have protested the arrests if others had? I think it is good to follow a crowd if it benefits you, if not, then disengage, in whatever that crowd was doing, you might be doing yourself a favor. I also think the narrator failed to speak up out of fear. If I were in his position, I probably would not speak up either. Would you? Think about it, all they have to do is through you in the fire and your old news, the organization was too powerful for inmates to change it. If others had started protesting the arrests maybe the narrator might have followed into the protest, but first would probably find out the consequences of those who spoke up. -Valerie Laguna

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, it becomes apparent that the effects of following the crowd can be extremely harmful and lead to negative consequences. I do believe that the narrator failed to speak up because others did not, but that was only part of the reason he didn't speak up. I think another contributing factor was their selfishness and carelessness for those around him. He had no desire to help others or to fight for them and their safety because he wasn't effected and he would remain safe. I do think he would've protested the arrests if others had. Many people tend to be sheep to society and follow what the crowd does. It can be scary to stand out and to do something different so I think if everyone had been protesting, he would've joined them to prevent himself from standing out by not protesting. I can make this assumption based off of what we see this happen in present events.    -Sophia Frand

# data[].attributes.body
The effects of following a crowd is expecting others to stand up against a situation that doesn't effect you, for you. We end up following the crowd without intending to do so. On top of that, we simply do not care for others conflicts and hardships if they don't effect us directly, so we see them as indifferent. That perception of indifference as Elie Wiesel mentioned earlier is one of the worst things to be perceived as because when you are in a life threatening plead  for help, no one will be there for you. The narrator was following a crowd because the problem didn't effect him and because the people around him didn't speak up either. That's called the bystander effect. When you see an obvious problem in front of you, but since you're in a crowd or you're around people you expect them to do something. In the end, since everyone has that mindset, nothing is done. On the other hand though, had others stood up against these acts of dehumanization, the narrator would of had taken a stand with them. Today you see an example of this. We saw this with the people who were being killed in China because of their beliefs. At first, since no one was addressing the problem, no one wants to take a stand against it. Now though, you have more people everyday choosing to talk about these wrongdoings, therefore the problem is getting closer to truly being exposed for what it is. The same exact situation happened with the holocaust. Countries such as the US saw the Jewish people as indifferent because no other country came to their aid. Later though, after the US was indirectly effected by this (Japan bombing Pearl Harbor), then they chose that it was time they stood up against it. Once other countries saw the US take a stand they took a stand as well. One effect of following a crowd that I think is overlooked is the corruption of the leader of that crowd. If we took Hitler for example. He knew very well that there were multitudes of people who thought what he was doing was wrong yet they still supported him. Hitler knew off this and he used their silence to his advantage. They gave him power by doing this. No one has power over you unless you give it to them. Although individually this isn't applicable, but when we talk about the majority of the German people, they didn't agree with Hitler's methods. Since they gave him the power of their silence, there was no going back because once he got that power he killed anyone who stood up against him. To conclude, the effects of following a crowd and being silent within a crowd are giving power to corrupt and evil people, and seeing others' difficulties as indifferent because they aren't yet applied to you. -Mina Ghobrial

# data[].attributes.body
In the context the affects of following the crowd, are eventually you will become the one who will face adversity, and when that happens other will follow the crowd, It all pertains to perspective. Just as one follows the crowd, another who used to follow the crowd is oppressed by those following the crowd. As pertaining to the second question, it is yes and no. I think it is very important as it pertains to who speaks out. When societies like Nazi Germany get broken into groups one when he decides to follow a group falls into one of those categories. Hence, the author could care less whether or not a Jew spoke out, or even many Jews, or a Communist, or many communists. It becomes when people are divided about choosing teams and deciding who to follow. Truly only if others like him began to be speak out would the author presumably join in, but someone had to be the first, and as the poem ends, no one chose to be the first one. This could be seen historically exactly where the author was, Nazi Germany. The Nazis ravaged several communities and faced so much outrage, the problem was the outraged groups were those who it was already to late for. It became all too easy for the Nazi regime to silence one person, and because of this no major internal resistance could really prevail until too late. Once the allies arrived inside and started the trials, everyone wanted no longer to be a Nazi for some reason and that showed how this group think went.

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the question, the effect of following the crowd can be that by the time the bad things start happening to you, everyone else is indifferent because you were indifferent for them. If you choose to never stand up for others, then you can't expect people to stand up for you, especially in circumstances of life or death. I believe the narrator didn't speak up because other people weren't speaking up, and in a situation like this where you will be murdered for. a different opinion, if no one speaks up as as a large group, no one wants to speak up as an individual person. But, because everyone had that same mindset, no one ever spoke up, and horrible things were allowed to happen. I think that if others had protested the events, more people would've spoken up because it's easier to get things done as a larger group. That being said, I don't know the narrator's character, and from his poem it sounds like he was just very selfish and didn't want to help anyone but himself. We can see mindsets like this is today's world, from both sides of the political spectrum. The people who blindly support a presidential candidate because he tells them everything is going great, live in their own bubble of ignorance, refusing to see what is happening to other people because things are going amazing for them. On the other side of the spectrum, you can see people who refuse to vote, because neither of the candidates fit their qualifications, and for that reason they are willing to turn a blind eye to the people who their "not voting" will affect. People choose to ignore what doesn't help them, especailly when they are following a herd mentality, and with this they still expect people to stand up for them.

# data[].attributes.body
The effect of following the crowd and not speaking out about injustice is that eventually injustice will find you. Unless you agree 100 percent with the crowd, you will also feel out of place on certain issues, too, since no one always agrees with the majority or the crowd. The narrator made a decision by themselves not to speak-up. People are more likely to follow the crowd in what is called the bandwagon effect, so the narrator probably would have been more likely to protest if others had. The effect is seen in sports, when a team makes it to the championship and suddenly they have far more fans. It also happens in politics. In the United States, the two major political parties already have a large number of supporters, so new voters tend to select from the two major parties, even if their views are more in line with an independent. The narrator may also have been uncertain about what was happening to the socialists, trade unionists and Jews. Humans tend to believe in a just world, so when something bad happens to someone, they tend to believe it was right to happen to them. They also tend to believe that good things happen to good people. So the narrator may have thought that the socialists, trade unionists and Jews had done something to warrant being taken, but that the narrator himself or herself would have nothing to worry about since he or she would know that they had done nothing to warrant being taken.  -Kira Macdonald

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, the effects of following the crowd are, allowing more suffering of others to occur, because in this case following the crowd means keeping quiet about the killing of millions of people, because one doesn't want to draw attention to themself.  The narrator definitely failed to speak up because others did not, because if others were then he would be able to follow the crowd by speaking up.  The narrator is comfortable hiding behind other people and allowing bad things to happen as longs as they don't affect him, which is why the narrator didn't speak up when others did not.  I think the narrator would have protested the arrests if others had, because if other people are he would feel more comfortable doing it, as he would be part of the crowd, and not be making a stand alone.  The narrator's problem is that he doesn't feel comfortable speaking out for what he thinks is right, but when other people support his beliefs it would be easier for him to speak up.  -Jason Cowan

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, the effects of following the crowd are disastrous and can often result in indifference which, in turn, can lead to suffering.  In the quotation it is evident that the author did follow the crowd by not standing up when they came for the others.  Because of this indifference more and more people were picked off until finally they came for him.  And by that point there was no one left to stand up for him.  There is no doubt that because the author and everyone else followed the crowd and were indifferent, they experienced suffering.  I do think that the narrator failed to speak up because others did not.  There is a psychological phenomenon known as the lemming effect  wherein crowds of people, across various fields of life, exhibit a certain kind of behavior for no reason other than the fact that a majority of their peers do so.  Lemmings are small rodents with an extreme crowd mentality that have been known to jump off cliffs or into raging rivers in mass numbers, resulting in their deaths, for no reason other than that their peers did it.  Examples of the lemming effect are portrayed in just about everything on the planet.  It is a survival instinct to follow the crowd, but ironically this instinct can often be counterproductive.  Even in humans, an incredibly advanced and evolved species, this effect is still present.  In a society dependent on its citizens following the status quo, most usually do.  This is often manipulated for evil purposes, just like it is within the context of the quotation.  For the same reasons, the narrator would have protested the arrests if the others had.  We as a species have an incredible fear of being disliked or labeled as an extremist for having views that do not adhere to the crowd.  So the likelihood is that if others were doing it, the narrator would have been doing it as well, no matter what "it" was.  We must unlearn our ancient tradition of closed mindedness, because as shown, it often leads to suffering.  If we are going to survive as individuals and as a species we must learn to look at issues as a whole and think about root causes and ramifications beyond how they affect ourselves.  Because how can you follow the crowd if there is no crowd left to follow.  --Miles Griffin

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation,  the effects of following the crowd are becoming part of something that someone is not, hurting other people that are not part of the crowd, and following a crowd that isn't looking out for people. When following a crowd, an individuals ideals do not matter to the collective. Therefore, people in the crowd become indifferent to other people. If someone becomes indifferent, they are doing evil to the people that are outside of the crowd. I think that the narrator failed to speak because he was scared. Scared of the consequences, scared of failure, scared of the crowd. The fact is that the narrator always had the ability to speak, but he did nothing. Many people in history have shown that you don't wait for someone to do it for you, you do it yourself. A great example of those people who stood up for other was Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, and many other leaders who fought day in and day out for equality. They took a stand, when no one else did or could. The narrator didn't fail to speak because others did not. The narrator failed to speak because his own voice did not. Even if people were to speak, it is questionable that the narrator would have protested the arrest. He would feel scarred as to what might happen to him if he does speak out. Therefore, the narrator only would have spoken if he had known the outcome of what the protests would bring. If they brought change, he would protest. If they failed, he would stay quiet. Overall, the narrator followed the crowd, and his punishment for that was silence. -Aaron Cayetano

# data[].attributes.body
In the contexts of the quotation, the effect of the following crowd is causing more suffering when you are indifferent to the suffering of others. The Narrator had stood idly by, not speaking up while people around him were being abducted until, "they came for [him] — and there was no one left to speak for [him]" (Niemöller). Ultimately, he had caused more suffering and brought the same harm upon himself as the other people because he did not advocate for them while they were suffering. I believe the narrator failed to speak up not just because what was initially happening around him did not effect him, but also partially because others did not. It is much easier to be part of a protest or revolution than to lead or start one. Speaking up when others are speaking up is substantially easier because you aren't doing it alone. - Micah Kennedy

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of the quotation, the affects of following the crowd are that you become a part of the problem by being indifferent and allowing others to suffer. By becoming indifferent to others problems you will not break the cycle of indifference: therefore, when you face a problem everyone else will be indifferent to your problem, and so the cycle of indifference and suffering continues. I think that the narrator did fail to speak up because others did not for, throughout history we have seen more people become bystanders when others are being oppressed rather than stand up for them. Some examples of this are the ways that the Spaniards killed thousands of indigenous people and those who had some power to make changes just stood by and watched, the indifference in this situation does not end there because Americans still celebrate Christopher Columbus even though he killed so many indigenous people rather than accepting that Columbus day should only be called Indigenous people day. This issue is relevant as this celebration is on October 12th, and after thousands of years of studying this injustice we are still indifferent to the issue and have a holiday named after an oppressor. When a whole country supports an oppressor it becomes hard for one to speak up against the indifference so I do think that when so many people stay quiet is hard for one person to speak up. I think that the narrator realizes what he did wrong and would have protested if their was others who protested with him but because of what we are taught from a young age about our histories acts of indifference it is hard to go against everything that one is taught. - Diana Chavez