Analysis Of Elie Wiesel's The Perils Of Indifference

Writer, Elie Wiesel in his metaphorical speech “The perils of Indifference” argues that the future will never know the agony of the Holocaust and they will never understand the tragedy of the horrific terror in Germany. Wiesel wants people to not let this happen but at the time many modern genocides that are occurring and people shouldn’t be focused on just the Holocaust, they should focus on making this world a better place; moreover, Wiesel expresses his thoughts about all the genocides that has happen throughout the years. He develops his message through in an horrifying event that took place 54 years ago the day “ The perils of Indifference” was published. Wiesel illustrates the indifferences of good vs evil. He develops this message

Some of the things that happened during the Holocaust was murder, starvation, gas chambers, mistreatment, concentration camps. What was Elie Wiesel purpose for writting the book Night? One reason for Elie Wiesel’s writting the book Night was to remind people of what happened to him/ the Jews. He also wrote it to remind people of it so people do not forget. Also, to make sure something like the Holocaust does not happen again.

The message that is sent across in this speech is also something that makes it so effective. Wiesel’s goal is not only to inform the people of the horrible events of the Holocaust, but also a call to action. This call to action is to end indifference throughout the world. Wiesel tries throughout the speech to inspire his audience within the White House, as well as the people of the world to act in times of human suffering, injustice, and violence. Within this call to action, Wiesel argues that indifference is an action worse than any other. Even anger, according to Wiesel, is a more positive action than indifference. “Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response.” When Wiesel states this simple, yet powerful statement, it forces any listener to consider how negative of an emotion hatred is, then puts indifference well below it. Wiesel also addresses how easy it is for any person to be indifferent. He states, “Of course, indifference can be tempting—more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims.” This quote

Elie Wiesel’s speech falls into the deliberative genre category, and was designed to influence his listeners into action by warning them about the dangers indifference can have on society as it pertains to human atrocities and suffering. The speech helped the audience understand the need for every individual to exercise their moral conscience in the face of injustice. Wiesel attempts to convince his audience to support his views by using his childhood experience and relating them to the harsh realities while living in Nazi Death Camps as a boy during the Holocaust. He warns, “To be indifferent to suffering is to lose one’s humanity” (Wiesel, 1999). Wiesel persuades the audience to embrace a higher level of level moral awareness against indifference by stating, “the hungry children, the homeless refugees-not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope, is to exile them from human memory”. Wiesel’s uses historical narrative, woven with portions of an autobiography to move his persuasive speech from a strictly deliberative genre to a hybrid deliberative genre.

Elie Wiesel has given the listener a wonderful opportunity to feel the intense movement of his speech, “The Perils of Indifference”. His speech is centered around the need for vigilance in the face of evil. Throughout this speech, with which he moved so many, he shared his experience with being sent to Buchenwald, a concentration camp, the treacherous conditions in which they were living, and the way that indifference has separated human beings. He explained, that through anger and hatred a great poem or symphony can be written, because “One does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses.” (Wiesel, 1999/16, p. 78). The three strategies that will be explored throughout this analysis are ethos, logos, and pathos.

Elie Wiesel is a Holocaust survivor and successful writer and speaker. He’s written a very popular book, Night and speeches that also get Elie’s message across. While his book Night and his speech Perils of Indifference both illustrate indifference, it’s displayed in different ways. The effects, pain and suffering from the holocaust were described in the book and all this was due to indifference which was communicated through the speech. The two texts have common similarities, but also many differences as well.

“The Perils of Indifference” by Elie Wiesel, explains the true and utter horror of indifference. There is a clear emphasis on the morality exhibited in the act as well as the disappointment in the US government’s ability to respond to such a horrible act. It is obvious that Wiesel establishes tones of morality, condescendingness, and caution through diction, imagery, as well as syntax used in the speech. Although Wiesel describes how indifference has a massive effect on the victims even though by the very nature, bystanders do nothing. Indifference itself shows lack of regard for those in need and that can be perceived as morally lacking, which Wiesel condemns in the highest degree.

Elie Wiesel’s purpose of this text was to discuss the parallels of the experiences he survived through during the Holocaust and the events in Kosovo that were going through ethnic cleansing. Wiesel has intended this speech to an audience of President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton. Throughout this speech, Wiesel also expressed his gratitude towards President Clinton for the “...justified intervention in Kosovo...a lasting warning that never again will the deportation, the terrorization of children and their parents, be allowed anywhere in the world.” The author feels that this message is important because “We are on the threshold of a new century, a new millennium” and the injustice lessons of the past must be remembered. This shows that Wiesel cares for the

“Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end.” (American Rhetoric). This is a sentiment that Elie Wiesel pushes throughout his speech, The Perils of Indifference. Elie Wiesel was a Romanian born, Jewish writer, and was a survivor of the holocaust (Berger). In his speech, The Perils of Indifference, he discusses how indifference has hurt him, and everyone throughout the world. In this speech Wiesel uses appeals to pathos to make his argument effective. Examples are scattered across the speech to make it more appealing, and provide real world context for what he is arguing about. The last of the rhetorical choices the speaker makes is definition, in this speech Wiesel defines indifference, and uses this definition to prove why indifference hurts people. In Elie Wiesel’s speech, The Perils of Indifference, he argues that indifference hurts people, and his argument is effective by using various rhetorical choices.

The Turks wanted to get rid of the Armenians and other minority because they wanted to because they wanted to be one pure ethnicity with one language and one religious group. Over a million people died from the events of the Armenian genocide and their deaths are recognized here in the United States as what it was, however they are still denied the real reasons in their own country today. To sum up Wiesel’s defining indifference speech, he could merely say “The Armenian Genocide.” This is indifference in the past and indifference now. The rest of the world knows the genocide happens and accept it, however that country’s government are still ignorant to this

Overall, Elie Wiesel displayed indifference throughout both his speech and book very well. He gave his readers a small glimpse at what being indifferent can do to a

Maybe the shock value that the media craves is lost in repetition, but in reality, there are always more developments to a story. Conflicts that will one day meet the front page of The New York Times may never again see widespread attention despite ongoing struggle. How are we to collaborate and prevent disasters, genocides, wars, etc. without consistently and constantly engaging the public? Radio silence is the last thing Americans need. However, even in the case of a well-reported humanitarian issue like the Syrian refugee crisis, the nations of the world—especially America—are divided. The moral imperative of global cooperation has fallen beneath the priorities of feuding political parties and their agendas. Meanwhile, civilian life is devalued, targeted by armed groups including both ISIS and the Free Syrian Army. Still, some Westerners are paranoid about refugees, fearing radicalism, though the vast majority of those in dire need are benign. And so, Wiesel's vision further deteriorates. But in optimistic contrast, dozens of countries have opened their borders to six million Syrians, giving hope to many displaced others. The spark of ethical response burns still, albeit softer. Millions more are in need, and unless the world turns their heads in tandem to address crisis, they will perish. The World Wars demonstrated that we can work together to end the

I agree with Wiesel’s statement that “sometimes we must interfere”. Problems do not just get fixed by themselves, especially not huge world crisis ones like the holocaust. There is so much wrong with this world, like Wiesel said “there is so much injustice and suffering crying out for our attention”. If you just walk down the street you will see someone in pain, suffering from what this world has threw at them, and what do we do? We just look at them, think “awh thats so sad, someone should help them” but nobody is helping. Nobody will stand up and say “Hey this has got to stop!” and actually put some action to them words. We stand by everyday and watch awful things go on in other countries and even our own country, even our own neighborhood.

The perils of indifference by Elie Wiesel is, indeed, a successful piece of work. Wiesel being a victim of the Holocaust, speaks out against the issue of indifference and at the end of his speech, provides a resolution to this issue. He is a Jewish man whose family, including himself, suffered a lot from the Holocaust. His speech is aimed towards the white house and its constituents, those affected by the indifference towards the Holocaust and the world in general. Using rhetorical appeals, rhetorical questions and imagery, Wiesel successfully confronts his audience on this act of indifference and persuades them to change towards having compassion and empathizing with others especially those victimized by the Holocaust.

In his speech he recalls not only the bad, but the good to follow, “And yet, my friends, good things have also happened in this traumatic century: the defeat of Nazism, the collapse of communism… And then, of course, the joint decision of the United States and NATO to intervene in Kosovo and save those victims, those refugees, those who were uprooted by a man whom I believe that because of his crimes, should be charged with crimes against humanity. But this time, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond. This time, we intervene.”(Wiesel). Wiesel remembers the good following the bad, “The defeat of Nazism” those who killed 11 million people and “The collapse of communism” what caused the holocaust to continue. The horrible things that happened good came out, not enough to make up but good things. Wiesel also states that this time (in Kosovo) when the people were being tortured similarly to the holocaust and instead of doing nothing and letting people die like before, they did something. What happened in the Holocaust, looking back, there was so much that people could have done, some wonder ‘How many important people did they kill, people who would find the cure for cancer or diseases, doctors, engineers, lawyers the list goes on. The world sat back and watched as this happen and there way no way the world would do that