What is more hurtful than words and actions? Indifference is the lack of interest, concern, or sympathy. In the “The Perils of Indifference,”, the author, Elie Wiesel, claims that indifference is more dangerous than violence. He uses strong word choice, emotional appeal, anecdotes, logical appeal, and ethical appeal to support his claim and convince his listeners that indifference is harmful in many ways. First, the author supports his claim that indifference is more harmful by using emotional appeal through powerful imagery. The author shows his claim in the story by using laconic phrases: "They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead and did not know it." (para. 6). This recondite quote shows that there is a lack of sense in dying people, which makes the readers feel sorrowful. Wiesel uses this to elucidate the claim that indifference is harmful because it shows that the lack of interest could lead to death and sorrow of many people. In short, Wiesel uses the emotional appeal in imagery to show that indifference is dangerous. Next, Wiesel uses word choice to support his claim that indifference is destructive and to prove that people need to express thankfulness. In the speech, he says, “‘Gratitude’ is a word that I cherish.” (para. 2). He uses this to express thankfulness and content to the first lady, Hillary Clinton. It also …show more content…
He states in the story, ”A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil.” (para. 4). Wiesel uses this to explain that our morals are fighting between right and wrong, good and evil, plus light and darkness. Indifference is one of the unnatural states when people are amoral; they do not understand what is wrong and right. This means that indifference is dangerous. Thus, Wiesel uses ethos to explain how indifference is
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’s inclusion of this quote shows readers that he was appalled by the inhuman prisoners and concentration camp leaders. One of the reasons for Wiesel becoming so traumatized by the evils of humanity is his prior belief that people would help each other in times of need. Halperin writes, “Before coming to Auschwitz, Eliezer had believed that twentieth-century man was civilized. He had supposed that people would try to help one another in difficult times; certainly his father and teachers had taught him that every Jew is responsible for all other Jews” (Halperin 33). Convinced that people were kind and that Jews would help one another, Wiesel was greatly disappointed after coming to a tragic realization in the concentration camps. Wiesel was robbed, pushed, beaten, and betrayed by his fellow Jews at the camps. Contrary to his prior belief that Jews should be working together, the other Jews invested in themselves. They cared, solely, about their own well being. In including the evils of the other prisoners, Wiesel is able to show readers that due to the lack of innocence within the concentration camps, it was inevitable for him to lose his
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 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.
Ethos is conveyed by using “my friends” to show how Wiesel is attempting to persuade the trust of the audience (Wiesel, 1999/16, p. 80). The author uses historic facts to show how much indifference there is in the world and why there is a need for vigilance in the face of evil. Pathos is pulling on one’s heart strings because it is, after all, easier to look away from one’s pain and misery and just carry on with everyday life. As Helen Keller once said, “Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all -- the apathy of human beings.” (Simran, 2017, Random musings, para.
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.
Throughout Wiesel’s speech, he used a copious amount of anaphora. Wiesel used this technique to help get his point across to the audience. He explains how easy it is to use indifference; consequently, people are taking opportunities from others. Wiesel explains, “our work, our dreams, our hopes” (Wiesel 1-2), to show the audience what indifference is effecting in their lives. By repeating the word “our” before each subject that is being affected, he is showing the audience that the victims being affected have their own opportunity for work, dreams, and hopes. By others being indifferent, the victims may not have those opportunities anymore.
“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.
Indifference is the easy way out taken by so many people towards the tragedies occurring around them. Elie supports his main idea by connecting it to his experience and other events, as well. An example of his merge of other events is the assassinations of Gandhi and Martin Luther King JR. Many mourned the death of these two great leaders, many didn't, but did the world know why they were killed in the first place? Elie shows that indifference is wrong, and any other emotion is much more
In his speech, “The Perils of Indifference,” Elie Wiesel explains that “Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger or hatred,” (Paragraph 11). I agree with this sentiment because while anger can make people do things like change something for the sake of humanity, nothing good can come out of indifference. When a person is indifferent, they don’t feel the need to change anything for the better. Wiesel defines indifference as “a strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and darn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassions, good and evil,” (Paragraph 6). Indifference is a state of being in which a person is unconcerned about the things and people around them.
It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruption to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person’s pain and despair”(Wiesel). Wiesel is making a point on how, we would rather take the easy way out and avoid acknowledgement. Also just like how he states later on,”their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest”, even when we notice the incident we tend to see the picture, like who is around and who will see you helping the victim; or even when we know we can help but don't want to go out of our way to assist another. Resulting from this indifference is a variety of outcomes, such as poverty, suffering of women, genocide,etc…, the list keeps going going, but all that matters is that it is all starting from indifference towards one another.