Social Injustice Rhetorical Analysis

Wiesel pinpoints the indifference of humans as the real enemy, causing further suffering and lost to those already in peril. Wiesel commenced the speech with an interesting attention getter: a story about a young Jewish from a small town that was at the end of war liberated from Nazi rule by American soldiers. This young boy was in fact himself. The first-hand experience of cruelty gave him credibility in discussing the dangers of indifference; he was a victim himself.

On December 9, 1948, as the United States was approaching a proposal towards the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which seemed unfair and uncompromised, first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt displayed a motivational and moving speech to allow the citizens of America to come together as one to make the best of the situation that was proposed in front of them. The analysis of the tingling speech on the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, will explore the deep rhetorical devices used to compel the audience and America, including the true purpose and background of this particular eye-opening speech. In paragraph 1, it reads, “Not every man nor every government can have what he wants in a document of this kind. There are of course particular provisions in the Declaration before us with which we are not fully satisfied.”

Vaclav Havel wrote his essay “The power of the powerless” as a description and critique of the totalitarian communist government and its system. He states that Communism is different to the other types of dictatorship as it is alike a “secularized religion” rather than the usual dictatorship, which do not have any social of historical background and come to power just by the military power. He also described how the individuals are responsible for getting under the autocratic regime due to their agreement to live in a society of consumers, where the supplier is the government, expecting everyone to go with the strict order of life. In case those individuals decide to participate in that and “live within a lie”, they are bounded with the communism.

In the speech, titled “The Perils of Indifference,” Elie Wiesel showed gratitude to the American people, President Clinton, and Mrs. Hillary Clinton for the help they brought and apprised the audience about the violent consequences and human suffering due to indifference against humanity (Wiesel). This speech was persuasive. It was also effective because it conveyed to the audience the understanding of

When the world is engulfed in injustice, it calls for brave men and women to fight back, but the question is how should one fight? Most would resort to violence to kill off injustice, but this leads to even more violence and chaos in most cases than intended. If someone is going to be shot the first reaction is to fight off the killer. However, Cesar Chavez implies in his powerful essay the weakness of violence in a unjust situation and instead the power of nonviolence.

In his 1986 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Elie Wiesel strives to inform his audience of the unbelievable atrocities of the Holocaust in order to prevent them from ever again responding to inhumanity and injustice with silence and neutrality. The structure or organization of Wiesel’s speech, his skillful use of the rhetorical appeals of pathos and ethos, combined with powerful rhetorical devices leads his audience to understand that they must never choose silence when they witness injustice. To do so supports the oppressors. Wiesel’s speech is tightly organized and moves the ideas forward effectively. Wiesel begins with humility, stating that he does not have the right to speak for the dead, introducing the framework of his words.

He later on directly states the contrast by arguing that “nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect.” His use of strong words like “support,” “conscience” and “justice” when illustrating the idea of nonviolence promotes the value of every human life and helps to attract support for his cause by depicting why it is correct and effective. This moral appeal to the reader helps establish nonviolence as a humane method of effecting long-lasting change in the

When no influence is strong enough to unify people, they divide. They struggle” (91). During times of instability, the “influence” that once brought people together is long forgotten, people only look out for themselves. This stimulates the division of like people and as a result, the community struggles. She examines every person around her to make sense of her thoughts and values and to find her place in the world.

But when leaders that seek and aspire change the people will follow and create an unforgettable movement. Racial equality has been an issue in society for centuries, but a change in mind set has put us in the correct direction. Although there are still displays of injustice and inequality, they are certainly less prevalent then before. Our connection with others around us plays a large part in helping us achieve equality and justice, and with large movements around the world, we have begun to change the world for the

Reparations for slavery is the idea that some form of compensatory payment should be made to the descendants of Africans who had been enslaved as part of the Atlantic Slave Trade. With that being said, I don’t believe this essay is a case for reparations. Coates never gives the breakdown of what the United States reparation would look like. He never tells us, his readers, how the system would work, or how anyone would actually make the political case for it. This argument is not about reparations for slavery, either.

From history of hundreds of decades, we have witnessed the great progress made by human, in technology and in society. But injustice always exists everywhere in this world. Injustice and unfair treatment could not be erased from the world easily. Just like the situation described by John Steinbeck, the immigrants faced injustice. But there are too many injustices that even worse in the world.

The author expresses cruelty in neutrality and how the bombardment of neutrality all around the world blocks the freedom of the Jews, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented” (Wiesel). Wiesel tries to persuade the reader to always take sides because neutrality is just as worse as to take the side of the tormentor. He uses strong vocabulary and imagery to conclude his reasons on why no one should ever stay neutral.

Injustices, tragedies, and unfortunate circumstances have plagued humankind for all of existence. Many of these problems have arisen from the society of man, and could not be found in nature. The hatred, selfishness, prejudice, and maliciousness seen in so many injustices man created unnecessarily, as well as all the suffering it causes does not need to exist. If an individual witnesses a crime or injustice occurring, it is their responsibility to defend the weak and fight for whatever is morally right, even at the cost of themselves.

In order to fully understand this argument, one must contemplate the exemplification which was examined earlier. Essentially, by forfeiting one’s life to a cause, attention surrounding the cause itself begins to build. Naturally, the public will wonder what cause would be worth a life. Consequently, like-minded individuals will stumble upon the cause and join the efforts. The momentum that will have resulted from the act have the ability to facilely surpass long-term efforts.

Following the account of how man should seek “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” (The Declaration of Independence) the writer lets the people know that everyone has the right to overthrow a government if the human rights are unfair and unjust. And