Posed with Wiesenthal’s predicament on forgiveness, it is easy to feel overwhelmed by the infinite amount of approaches to a response. Seemingly impossible, Levi, Locke, Tec, and Prager achieve that difficult task by narrowing down their arguments into conclusive essays. When placed side by side for comparison, the four pieces of writings may appear similar due to the closely-tied opinions and response. However, whether through the usage of personal rhetorical analysis or the exploration of forgiveness’s limits, the symposiums begin contrast as each one follows their own unique route in the search for an answer.
Attempting to alleviate Wiesenthal’s inner torment, Primo Levi argues in favor of Wiesenthal’s silence. Based on his personal interpretation, he concludes Wiesenthal did not feel the true urge to forgive. He writes, “You could only have forgiven him by lying or by
…show more content…
He conducts an experiment by interviewing a Protestant minister, Catholic priest, and a rabbi to gather responses on the infamous gang-rape and murder case in New York City. Completely alike to his original hypothesis, the Christians believed in forgiveness while the Jewish callers were disgusted. Using specific examples and responses, Prager strengthens his essay by proving the truth to his inquiries. The creation of an answer to Wiesenthal’s dilemma has no set structure or instructions as exemplified by these responses. Levi, Locke, Tec, and Prager all reach in different directions to provide thought out reasoning and arguments. While the supporting evidence for each essay may vary from each author, they all found plausible reasons to show that Wiesenthal’s decision to withhold forgiveness in silence was the best option. As each responder branches off from the root of collective agreement, different schools of thought are contemplated as of each writer 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
Everyone has moments in their life where they wish they would have done something differently. For example, I wish I would have studied for a hard test more or my brother may wish that he did not run on wet tile and break his hand. Many of these things are personal cause and effects. Most of the time you know what you should or should not be doing at the time of the certain action. In the book The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal, the author asks the reader to explore what they would have done if a nazi asked for forgiveness on their deathbed. What makes Wiesenthal’s situation different from ours is that his pain or for lack of better words suffering was out of his control and the person who controlled it is asking him for forgiveness. What
He was finally free, no joy filled his heart but abandonment was drowning it. How dangerous is indifference to humankind as it pertains to suffering and the need for conscience understanding when people are faced with unjust behaviors? Elie Wiesel is an award winning author and novelist who has endured and survived hardships. One of the darkest times in history, a massacre of over six million Jews, the Holocaust and Hitler himself. After the Holocaust he went on and wrote the internationally acclaimed memoir “Night,” in which he spoke out against persecution and injustice across the world. In the compassionate yet pleading speech, ¨Perils of Indifference,¨ Elie Wiesel analyzes the injustices that himself and others endured during the twentieth century, as well as the hellish acts of the Holocaust through effective rhetorical choices.
In Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower, he recounts his incidence of meeting a dying Nazi soldier who tells Simon that he was responsible for the death of his family. Upon telling Simon the details, Karl asks for his forgiveness for what he helped accomplish. Simon leaves Karl without giving him an answer. This paper will argue that, even though Karl admits to killing Simon’s family in the house, Simon is morally forbidden to forgive Karl because Karl does not seem to show genuine remorse for his committed crime and it is not up to Simon to be able to forgive Karl for his sins. This stand will be supported by the meaning of forgiveness, evidence from the memoir, quotes from the published responses to Simon’s moral question, and arguments from
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.
The world is cruel and harsh; what does it take to prove that you and your experiences are capable of persuasion. In this world, you’d want as many allies as possible, and building emotional bridges with others is a definite way of proving that you matter to others. It’s a matter of philosophy; human nature emphasizes on individual existence; therefore rhetoric is effective to measure one’s importance. Elie Wiesel, a man of age, is a jewish holocaust survivor who has a story to tell and a story to be heard. Does the man have what it takes to prove himself worthy of a rhetoric leader? Elie Wiesel’s speech, The Perils of Indifference, Mr. Wiesel takes advantage of rhetorical questions and the appeals of pathos and logos to persuade and inform the audience about their inner indifference towards the havoc happening around the world.
Rhetorical devices are devices that are used to convey a meaning to the reader and create emotions through different types of language. Elie Wiesel uses rhetorical devices such as personification, metaphors, and rhetorical questions to emphasize and establish the theme of losing faith.
“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.
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).
No matter the situation, great or small, one cannot have their rectitude stolen unless it is sacrificed or forgotten. Moral principles are unique to each person and if they hold on tight enough, one will never forfeit their virtue. In Elie Wiesel’s emotional memoir, Night, Wiesel is forced out of his home and sent to Auschwitz, a concentration camp filled with copious horrors, because of his Jewish faith. Jews and other minorities were slaughtered for fictitious crimes, and if they were not killed, they released all hope and dignity. During the Holocaust, prisoners struggle to preserve their morality in the face of unjust, inhuman cruelty.
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.
The conversation between Wiesenthal and Bolek is another example of forgiveness is necessary. When Wiesenthal tells Bolek of what he experienced in the dying SS man’s room, Bolek says he describes it as a man who showed signs of “repentance, genuine, sincere repentance” (Wiesenthal 82). He means that Wiesenthal believes the dying SS man’s apology was sincere. He believes that Wiesenthal seen his apology as genuine and that he deserved the “mercy of forgiveness” (Wiesenthal 82). Wiesenthal spots a sunflower behind a bush, he takes it as the sunflower has come to “remind [him]” (Wiesenthal 84) of what he describes as a “feeling of duty” (Wiesenthal 84). Wiesenthal “duty” (Wiesenthal 85) and his planning on visiting the mother of the deceased SS man show that he is beginning to realize that he needs to come to terms with his experienced at the hospital in Lemberg. He visits her for closure and ultimately to decide within himself if he should finally forgive the man responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent Jewish people.
In the world during the time of the Holocaust, there was indifference towards the suffering of millions of Jews. When individuals reflect about the Holocaust, the majority of the time the responsibility of the terrible events is placed upon the perpetrators. However, bystanders and witnesses indirectly affected the victims of the Holocaust as well. The silence of these people played one of the largest roles in the Holocaust, they influenced it by avoiding any type of involvement and by becoming blinded towards the suffering of others. In his Academy Award acceptance speech, Elie Wiesel says, “the opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference”. This exert from his speech reveals the importance
Victims in large scale crimes have observed that most perpetrators show no remorse or regret for their evil actions when they are carrying them out, even justifying them at times. This attitude can drastically change when the person is on their deathbed. Harry James Cargas is a scholar and author best known for his research on the Holocaust and Christianity, and he wrote an essay in response to Wiesenthal’s questions in The Sunflower. He touches on this subject of repentance coming too late, saying, “Deathbed conversions are dramatic but in many instances they are too easy” (Cargas 125). In other words, Cargas is saying that a person can participate in horrible crimes in their lifetimes, and then quickly have a change of heart on their deathbed. Some say that sort of conversion is too easy and does not show genuine remorse. Moshe Bejski is another author who responded in The Sunflower and would agree with Cargas on this matter. Bejski was an Israeli judge and a Holocaust survivor himself. At one point in his essay, he is discussing some of the crimes that Nazis committed against humanity, using methods of extermination that had never been thought of before. He then speaks directly of the SS soldier that asked Weisenthal for forgiveness, writing, “Only the awareness of imminent and certain death induced Karl to think that his actions had been crimes against both humanity and God” (Bejski 113). In this passage, Bejski is explaining his belief that only fear of impending death moved Karl to confess his sins and seek forgiveness. He even goes on to say that had Karl not been wounded, he would have continued to participate in murdering millions of innocent people, just as his fellow soldiers did. When faced with the prospect of death, it is natural for many people to desire forgiveness for the wrongs they have committed in order to find inner peace