##hetorical Analysis Of Elie Wiesel's The Perils Of Indifference

Prisoners during the holocaust normally could do nothing to help family, friends, and stranger who were falling victim to the Nazi regime. Many times they had to watch as their fellow prisoners were beaten and killed but could do nothing about it due to their fear. Elie describe what happened at the gallows when the young boy was hung, “Then came the march past the victims. The two men were no longer alive. Their tongues were hanging out, swollen and bluish. But the third rope was still moving the child, too light, was still breathing…” (Weisel 65). After the execution each prisoner had to walk past the boy, but yet again could do nothing but watch him die. They knew that if they help the child then they would either be beaten or even worse, killed. These prisoners once again fall victim to the bystander effect because they are unable to help someone in need because of their own

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, a Noble Peace Prize winner and Boston University Professor, presented a speech as part of the Millennium Lecture Series at the White House on April 12, 1999. President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton hosted the formal lecture series. Numerous dignitaries from a wide array of public, private and foreign office attended the event. Although Elie Wiesel designed his speech to persuade, it actually fell somewhat outside the deliberative genre category, as being more non-typical within this genre category.

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.

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.

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 use of Ethos by both Wiesel in “The Perils of Indifference” and by Atwood in “Footnote to The Amnesty Report on Torture” allows the reader to have a sense of trust in the speaker. Wiesel says “What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means ‘no difference.’” Wiesel lets the audience know that the subject of his speech will relate to the topic of indifference and that he himself is qualified to speak upon it. This helps give him credibility because he is showing his interest in the topic and his previous experience such as being apart of the holocaust and being within a concentration camp. Atwood says, “The torture chamber is not like anything you would have expected. No opera set or sexy chains and leather-goods from the glossy porno magazines.” Atwood gives a definition here which tells the reader that she has done her research and she knows what exactly she is talking about. Atwood describes how the typically perceived chamber would look like which also helps build a connection with the reader becu

“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.

“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.

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.

The Turks wouldn’t stop they just kept on killing the Armenians. People couldn’t bare to see their friends and family go knowing that they were next, as a result other nations tried to stop these crimes. The problems were addressed by national recognition of the war trials and education. Outside nations heard what was happening to the Armenians and sent Turkey an ultimatum to stop. Turkey ended up surrendering causing these massacres and inhumane acts.

In addition to the living conditions in the ghettos and camps, many differences in opinion led to hesitance to engage in resistance, particularly armed resistance. There was a great deal of collective responsibility involved with resistance- some believed that to act out was to endanger everyone in the group. Unfortunately, these worries were often founded in truth. In one instance, when a man protested the death of his brother by calling the SS member a murder, he was removed to prison, where he passed away; all of the other members of his group, who had witnessed the incident, were killed as well. By punishing the entire group for the rebellion of one, the SS helped to ensure that others would know the cost of resistance, and therefore be less inclined to resist themselves. Another instance of the idea of collective responsibility was seen in the Vilna ghetto- when fugitives escaped the ghetto, their families, as well all of the Jewish

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.

A quote from Albert Einstein states “the world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything”. As difficult as it is to describe the terrible deeds of those who were part of the Holocaust, it is true that those who did nothing are at fault just as much as those who carried out the actions. When one thinks of the Holocaust today it is difficult to picture that such events were done by human beings. Societies have advanced but it is important to acknowledge the reason as to why many bystanders refused to help or why they were so indifferent to the pain felt by the Jews. “The psychological mechanisms used to come to terms with the suffering of another appear to be very similar, whether the person is standing right before us or is 2,000 miles away. (Barnet:118) Barnett explains that ideological and moral principles also come into play, as do self-interest and the weighing of the possible consequences of our actions. We try to establish what is or is not possible. In the end, our decision will be determined not so much by whether we actually have the power to change a situation, but whether we have the will to do so. (Barnett, 118). In the case of many of the individuals who chose to become bystanders rather than change the situation they were not willing to get involved. Although not every German was a bystander, those who