Similarities Between Susan B Anthony And The Perils Of Indifferences

In the early stages of the year 1873, social reformer, women's rights advocate, proponent of feminism, Susan B. Anthony, shed’s light on women being able to have a lawful right to vote, with an influential speech, that leads to equality for women and men, this protest coordinates women and voting, but also opens opportunity for women in everything that they do. Susan B. Anthony supports her claims in a forceful manner, by explaining the amount of suffrage taking place in women's lives, as a result of the lack of rights they have, she gives a valid example by explaining her arrest, for “the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote”, she states that she did not commit a crime, she just exercised her rights as a citizen guaranteed by the National Constitution. Anthony’s purpose is to exert the rights for women that are in the Constitution, that are being overlooked by the United States Government. She establishes a compelling tone for whom it applies to.

“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.

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 gave his speech “Perils of Indifference” at the White House on April 12, 1999, as part of the Millennium Lecture series, presented by President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton. In the summer of 1944, Nazis deported Wiesel and his family to Auschwitz, a concentration camp located in Poland. In January 1945, Wiesel was moved to Buchenwald in Germany, where he was later liberated by American troops in April. After he regained his freedom, Wiesel learned that leaders of the free world had been aware of the horrors being committed and yet they did not take immediate action. In his speech, Wiesel addresses the leaders of America and bystanders who do not take action in times of trouble.

Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Elie Wiesel in his straightforward speech, “The Perils of Indifference,” asserts that the inhumanity of indifference is still relevant today and can have negative effects on humanity unless society acts to abolish indifference. He develops his message through highlighting his experience in the holocaust as well as the multitude of tragedies that had occurred that century and how indifference can be handled; he states “Society was composed of three simple categories: the killer, the victim, and the bystander.”(par 14) which shows how his experience and society today is categorized. He addresses how people in concentration camps were ignored and how the world can learn from this tragic, inhumane event. Wiesel’s

Human rights activist, Holocaust survivor, Nobel Peace Prize-Winner, and writer Elie Wiesel in his influential speech, “The Perils of Indifference,” emphasizes that indifference is an inhumane quality that affects the success and failure of the millennium. Wiesel develops his message by recalling his experiences in the Holocaust and how it cast a “dark shadow over humanity.” This event caused the pain and suffrage of many victims and filled him with “gratitude” towards the “American people” for saving the prisoners from the injustice of the Holocaust. Additionally, he mentions the “seductive” and “tempting” choice of being indifferent because it is easier to avoid the “pain and despair” of victims; as a result, we don’t have to

When soldiers engage in wars of aggression, attack non-combatants or pursue their enemies beyond what is reasonable, they commit acts of murder (Moseley, 2001, 3. The Principles Of Jus In Bello section, para. 6). This can lead to severe human rights violations, including genocide, torture, and slavery which violate individuals' most basic rights to life and physical safety (Partin, 2008, p. 25). In “The Perils of Indifference”, Wiesel shared his own personal experiences of injustice during the Holocaust. He describes the atrocities being committed by Adolph Hitler and being liberated from the concentration camps by American Troops. One of his heartfelt experiences includes witnessing the “Muselmanner” where he describes the members of the concentration camp as “Wrapped in their torn blankets, they would sit or lie on the ground, staring vacantly into space, unaware of who or where they were, strangers to their surroundings” (Wiesel, 1999, para. 7). Wiesel experienced torment and is aware of the misery of others. Both speaker’s experienced political injustice where their rights were violated. Wiesel was also a victim of war crimes where his life and physical safety was constantly put to the

“The only Question left to be settled now is: Are Women Persons?” Susan Brownell Anthony inquired in a speech she divulged during the 1800s after she was arrested and fined for voting the year before (women 's rights to the suffrage pg. 2). During the 1900s, and many years before that, women became vile to the fact of feeling suppressed. Two particular women became repulsive to the fact that women voting was a taboo subject. Because of the impact, these women had on the society, The women 's suffrage movement took place. Eventually, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, causing acceptance to women voting. Due to the hardiments of determined female’s, because of their hostile feelings toward women’s suffrage,

The battle of women’s suffrage in the United States can best be represented by Susan B. Anthony speech of 1873

“The only Question left to be settled now is: Are Women Persons?” Susan Brownell Anthony inquired in a speech she divulged during the 1800s, after she was arrested and fined for voting the year before. During the 1900s, and many years before that, women became vile to the fact of feeling suppressed.Two particular women became repulsive to the fact that Women voting was a taboo subject. Because of the impact these women had on the society, The women 's suffrage movement took place. Eventually Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, causing acceptance to women voting. Due to the hardiments of determined female’s, because of their hostile feelings toward women suffrage, society began to view females as a part of their

In 19th century many women did not have rights to vote. Women had to do whatever their father or husband told them to do. Susan B. Anthony was the first american women who played an important role in women's suffrage movement. She also wrote a speech about women’s rights on voting. Her purpose of writing the speech was to change the laws. She used persuasive techniques ethos in her speech. She chose the constitution because it is the most absolute law of the United States. In 1972 Anthony’s speech inspired lots of women to stand for their rights, stand up for their educations and to change the laws.

Susan once said it was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the union. (Anthony 42).Although we as women have equal right to vote now and it don't feel like a big issues but it was at one time. That period of time was in the late 1800's. Not only were women not allow to vote in the United States, but they could even be fined and arrested for their offense. Susan be Anthony was one of many women who was a campaigner for women rights. Also Elizabeth Caddy Stanton along with Susan be Anthony devoted their life to achieving a goal for women to vote.

In the event when Susan B. Anthony was charged with illegal voting, she reacted promptly by delivering in depth convincing speeches in the county where her trial would be held regarding women and their inalienable right to vote, as equals to men, with direct extracted evidence as proof from the Preamble and the United States Constitution. In her examination of the Preamble, she zeros in on the phrase “We the people” and addresses its broader meaning, which clearly does not state exclusivity solely to men. Her reasoning here is that if the phrase “We the people” includes women, which legally it does, then the Preamble should apply to women. Here she expresses her frustration on the matter: “[I]t is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government - the ballot.” She goes

Elie Wiesel's Speech: "The Perils of Indifference," tells of the injustice suffered by the Jewish people at the hands of “Hitler’s Germany” (Wiesel, 1999) fifty-four years prior to giving the speech on April 12th, 1999. During his encounter of the events, he takes note to highlight the feelings of the Jewish people because of others’ failure to deliver them from such turmoil, calling this failure indifference. By the end of his account, he is more than relieved that the indifference has ceased, but encourages others to react lest our children, our future fail. Likewise, is Susan B. Anthony’s speech: “On Women’s Right to Vote” is a report of injustice. Her account takes place in 1872 and surrounds the inequality suffered women; but more so her personal experience, as she was indicted for casting what she calls, an alleged illegal vote. She took this opportunity to focus not only on her personal prejudice but on the injustice of American women “without having a lawful right to vote” (Anthony, 1872). While these two speeches share a common theme that any injustice to any person’s civil liberty is wrong; I will show the reaction of the two author's are certainly different as well as the fate of the two groups were certainly not the same.

In the nineteenth century, during the suffrage movement, the suffragists emphasized the equality between men and women arguing that women had an equal right to education, professions from the education and of course the right to vote. By 1848, the legislature passed the Married Women’s Property Act, allowing wives to own property in their own name. Also, between 1857 and 1860 country’s lawmakers amended the act to allow women to have shared joint custody of their children, to collect their own earnings and when widowed, to inherit the same amount as their children. Famous woman’s rights activist, Susan B. Anthony, expressed her thoughts about men dominating the society after being arrested for casting an illegal vote in the presidential election of 1872. “The Preamble of the Constitution says it was we the people; not we the white, male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we the whole people who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people – women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only