Eliezer Wiesel's Speech The Perils Of Indifference

In the novel Night, Elie Wiesel gives an account about his life in a concentration camp. His focus is of course on his obstacles and challenges while in the camp, but his behavior is an example of how human beings respond to life in a concentration camp. The mood, personality, behavior, and obviously physical changes that occur are well documented in this novel. He also shows, as time wears on, how these changes become more profound and all the more appalling. As the reader follows Elie Wiesel’s story, from his home in the ghetto, to his internment at Auschwitz-Birkenau, to his transfer and eventual release at Buchenwald, one can see the impact of these changes first hand.

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

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.

As seen through the speech, Elie Wiesel is a strong believer of individual experiences; however, his questions arise about people’s indifference once his audience has heard of Wiesel’s traumatic experience. Often time, Wiesel uses rhetorical questions as a way to emphasize and sir thought. When asking, “Does it mean that we have learned from our past? Does it mean that society has changed? Has the human being become less indifferent and more human?” (Paragraph 21). Elie Wiesel demonstrates a self evaluation on the audience. The intended purpose, indifference within people, is openly enforced through self evaluation.

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.

“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.

As soon as the speech begins, Elie uses pathos with an anecdote on his experience after being freed from a concentration camp by American soldiers. This successfully elicits emotion from the audience and collects their attention for the rest of the speech with phrasing like “there was no joy in his heart”. Then, further in, Elie compliments Mr. Bill Clinton by saying he has gratitude for him being the “Commander and Chief of the army that freed me, and tens of thousands of others” and Mrs. Clinton is thanked for her efforts to help “…the victims of injustice, the victims of destiny and society directly. However, he continues on and calls the government out on their seeming indifference when it came to the events of WWII. By saying, “We believe that Auschwitz and Treblinka were closely guarded secrets…but we learned that

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.

When all the chances of breaking free from what was in store for them were pushed away, I wondered what would have happen if the Wiesel family had taken the chances they were given. If they had taken the opportunity to leave, maybe the family would be safe. Maybe they wouldn’t have had to face the horrific tragedy of the Holocaust; maybe the light behind their eyes wouldn’t have faded away along with their faith in God. Maybe, just maybe, the Wiesel family would have been all right, trying to restart a new life in Palestine, only to remain ignorant of what was happening around them…But ignorance comes with the consequences of harsh realization and the truth is never sugarcoated. The truth is cold and bitter, like poison forced down a person’s