Essay about Elie Wiesel’s “The Perils of Indifference” Speech

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

Wiesel does a wonderful job with his use of pathos throughout the speech by making the audience reflect on his words and creates a strong emotional reaction for what is being said. From being a survivor of the Holocaust, one of the darkest parts of history as well as the most shallow times for humanity. Immediate sympathy is drawn from the audience. When he states that himself endured the horrible conditions these people had to live in. He then explains to us that the people there, “No longer felt hunger, pain, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead and did not know it.” With saying this it brings forth feelings of guilt, one of the most negative emotions to accumulate a reaction towards these events. Also numerous people throughout the world long for world peace and to hear the inhumane acts that was once acted upon an innocent man, makes their stomach's sink. Wiesel defines its derivation, as “no difference” and uses numerous comparisons on what may cause indifference, as a “strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur.” Like good and evil, dark and light. Wiesel continues to attract the audience emotionally by stating this he is aware of how tempting it may be to be indifferent and that at times it can be easier to avoid

When Elie Wiesel said that indefference is perilous, because he meant that it’s bad to not to care about something that is serious and, is very dangerous. He states very clearly is his speech that “ indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten”(paragraph 9). This means, that indifference is always the enemys favorite thing because, if no one cares then the enemy of the situation will always get away with what he is doing and, no one will try to stop him and that it makes the victim of the enemy forgotten becuase no one cares about there pain or suffering. He goes on to explain that, “Rooted in our tradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity then was not the ultimate”(paragraph 7). They felt abandoned by other humans, because people showed no care about what was

The Perils of Indifference speech by Elie Wiesel is one that is well crafted and that sends a strong message to the audience. Wiesel, a survivor of the Holocaust, addresses the issues of the 20th century in his speech while at the same time explaining the dangers of indifference. Wiesel’s appeals to his audience, as well as his strong message and arguments are what make this speech so effective.

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 questions and asks that even though people see photos, are aware and feel empathy for what is what is occurring around the world, why don’t they just do something? “Does it mean that we have learned from the past? Does it mean that society has changed? Has the human being become less indifferent and more human? Have we really learned from our experiences” (Perils of Indifference)? Though that the holocaust has supposedly taught the world the responsibility of prevent, have we all really learned that? He also wanted to convey that indifference is worse than any other feeling such as hate. “Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction” (Perils of Indifference). Indifference is when solicitude is missing which indicates that there is a lack of awareness. Elie believes indifference is worse than hate because it implies that someone’s suffering isn’t worth rumination and consideration. The inhumanity that was put upon the Jews could have been stopped if people cared enough to take action against the Germans. Both messages are relevant and matter because they

“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.

“He was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again”. This quote stated by Elie Wiesel from his speech, “The Perils of Indifference”, refers to the day Elie Wiesel got liberated from the Holocaust when he was young. The Holocaust was just one of the many horrific tragedies that occurred during that century. In hopes of changing the future for the better, Wiesel decides to deliver a speech about helping the victims of injustice. He gives this speech intended for the President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, Excellencies, and friends hoping that they will make positive changes for the future. By using rhetorical strategies such as anaphora, rhetorical questions, and ethos, Wiesel tries to help the victims of injustice and prevent future tragedies from happening.

In 1999, Wiesel delivers an informative speech at the White House. In the beginning of Wiesel’s speech he mentions his gratitude to the American people, as well as the president’s wife for their actions, and concerns for (humanity) people in distress. Meanwhile, the speaker elaborates on the history of bloodshed and indifference, and its effect over the years in society. During this point of the outline, a chronological pattern is revealed. As the speaker describes indifference, he increases the audience understanding of a familiar topic. Nevertheless, depending on the audience, or era, the information within the message may be new to some people. The speaker explains the advantages and disadvantages of indifference; “my friends, good things have also happened in this traumatic century: the defeat of

“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.

Writer Elie Wiesel in is Critical speech “The Perils of Indifference,” sheds lights on to world we live in today has evolved into a society of indifference That stripes us form are sense of human characteristics to help others in need of assistance. He supports his claim by illustrating the affect the U.S indifferences had towards the jews led to the death of countless amount of jews perishing during the holocaust seen in paragraph 2 and 18. In addition; In paragraph 8 of “The Perils of Indifference,” it states that people who believe in indifferences become “inhuman” showing no form of sympathy towards others. Finally, In paragraph 11, the author draws the connection towards the countless amounts of death during the meinel with all

On April 12th 1999, in Washington D.C., Elie Wiesel gave a speech during the Millennium Lecture Series that took place in the East Room of the White House. The speech was given in front of Mr. Bill and Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and other officials. Elie Wiesel is an author most noted for his novel Night, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and political activist. In the speech he spoke on his view of indifference and explained how it was negatively affecting humanity and the nation as a whole. The Perils of Indifference was a speech that successfully used ethos, pathos, and logos to inform, persuade and inspire its audience on its views.

Wiesel is effective with his speech by connecting exaggeration within his revelation. He questions the guilt and responsibility for past massacres, pointing specifically at the Nazi’s while using historical facts, such as bloodbaths in Cambodia, Algeria, India, and Pakistan to include incidents on a larger level such as Auschwitz to provide people with a better idea (Engelhardt, 2002). He is effective in putting together the law and society’s need for future actions against indifference by stating, “In the place I come from, society was composed of three simple categories: the killer, the victims, and the bystanders” 7.(Wiesel 223).

Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, in the speech “Perils of Indifference”, calls out the American government for being indifferent in an important time in world history. He claims that indifference is a very horrible thing and bad things have come from. He supports his claim by first explaining his childhood, then he goes on to talk about what it means to him, next explains the power it can have and finally explains the consequences that can come from it. His purpose is to educate his audience about indifference in hope of preventing indifference to continue in the future generations in order to accomplish his purpose for the speech. He establishes a calm tone for his audience.

Elie Wiesel’s speech “The Perils of Indifference” is a mind opening and emotional speech that prompts the audience to change the indifference that plagues America and many people in this time and age. He expresses to the audience that indifference is the reason appalling and horrifying events, such as the Holocaust, occur and why no one takes immediate actions to help the victims. To get his point across, Wiesel uses his own history and experiences so that the audience can visualize the Holocaust through the eyes of a survivor and to project the feelings of hopelessness and defeat that the victims felt when no one came to end the injustice. In this critique, Elie Wiesel’s rhetorical speech of indifference will show its effectiveness through testimony, emotion, and rhetorical questions; this speech accomplished its goal and without a doubt persuaded most of the audience to call out for change in indifference.