Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate, Elie Wiesel delivered an impassioned speech in which he spoke of the perils of indifference in front of United States and World leaders. During his speech, which as known as the “Perils of Indifference.” Wiesel uses a three pronged approach of pathos, logos, and ethos to demonstrate the dangers standing by and doing nothing. Speaking as a witness, survivor, and teacher, Wiesel successfully argues for the case of action in Kosovo by first making witnesses of the audience, then by questioning the audience’s ethics, and finally showing that the world has learned from the atrocities of the past. First Wiesel uses pathos by telling his story of liberation in a third person narrative, drawing his audience in. He recounts "Though he did not understand their language, their eyes told him what he needed to know -- that …show more content…
It is important to know that the word Genocide did not exist in language and was coined in 1944 by a Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing) and was finally recognized by the UN General Assembly as a crime under international law in 1946 (Power). Wiesel presents the historical acts of indifference by the U.S. during World War II, when the president turn a ship full of Jewish refugees away from New York harbor, showing the world leaders that this was a choice between right and wrong, and indifference was the choice that was made. Wiesel does not condemn the U.S. but appeals to the logic in this presentation and then presents the lesson learned in Kosovo, when he says “this time, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond. This time, we intervene” (“Perils of Indifference”). Wiesel appeals to the logic of the world stance in Kosovo, as it had learned from the consequences of the World Leader’s indifference in the
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.
In Elie Wiesel’s acceptance speech of 1986 he stated that “when human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must –at that moment – become the center of the universe.” Considering the events that occurred in World War I, such as the Holocaust, I strongly agree with Wiesel’s statement about making those who are endangered our priority. It is the duty of those who inhabit this world to protect and set the imprisoned free regardless the circumstances. If no one has the courage to step up and do something to help, the oppressor will end up believing that treating people unjustly and forbid them from their freedom is indeed right.
In his speech, The Perils of Indifference, Elie Wiesel suggests that during the years of what was to become World War II, before America finally became involved in the conflict, that the people in power at that time knew about the plight of the Jewish people. “And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew.” (Wiesel, 1999) Wiesel speaks of the deaths of millions of innocent victims at the hands of Adolf Hitler. They were, as Wiesel says earlier in the speech, “bystanders” (Wiesel, 1999) and were doing nothing to intervene.
He describes “they, representing the office” as selfish and insensitive to tragedy. For example, during the Holocaust railroad tracks were not bombed, and 1,000 Jewish refugees were turned away. Other modern events he lists also appeal to the logical mind, including assassinations, World Wars, and civil wars, where the listener understands that the impact could have been, if not prevented, at least reduced, if humanity would have become more involved. “Surely they would’ve moved heaven and earth” if they understood the consequence of indifference. Wiesel acknowledges the fact that it is so easy to ignore issues and even rely on others to solve them, but if one is not living to do good, then what is the
Wiesel has been a part of many political affairs in which he has spoken to government officials about civil rights. In 2012, Wiesel gave up the Great Cross Award that was given to him by the Hungarian government in order to protest their “‘whitewashing…of criminal episodes that happened during the Holocaust’” (Machajewski 59). By giving up the medal, he has shown that he will ensure that the Holocaust will forever be remembered. Wiesel even went as far as to ending a relationship with the former French president, Francois Mitterrand, after “learning that Mitterrand had been a close friend of a Nazi collaborator and after Mitterrand refused to express regret for his actions” (Human Rights Activist).
Elie Wiesel lived threw one of the most horrific events in human history, due to this he has a certain philosophy on oppression and remaining silent. For example, Wiesel believes all rules are off when it comes to human suffering he says “when human dignity is in jeopardy national borders become irrelevant.” This emphasises that when humans are endangered we must forget our differences and fight. This also means we must forget about other countries and other races because human life is more important. Wiesel adds on to his belief by saying, “Wherever men or
The general statement made by Elie Wiesel in his speech, The Perils of Indifference, is that indifference is sinful. More specifically, Wiesel argues that awareness needs to be brought that indifference is dangerous. He writes “Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end”. In this speech, Wiesel is suggesting that indifference is dangerous it can bring the end to many lives. In conclusion Wiesel's belief is suggesting that indifference is an end, it needs to be noticed and taken care of.
Elie Wiesel Rhetorical Speech Analysis Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor and winner of a Nobel peace prize, stood up on April 12, 1999 at the White House to give his speech, “The Perils of Indifference”. In Wiesel’s speech he was addressing to the nation, the audience only consisted of President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, congress, and other officials. The speech he gave was an eye-opener to the world in his perspective. Wiesel uses a variety of rhetorical strategies and devices to bring lots of emotion and to educate the indifference people have towards the holocaust. “You fight it.
The speech, Mr. Wiesel showed to the audience that he knows of these events firsthand because he shared his own personal suffering and established ethos by telling the story in first person. He argued about the guilt of past violent events and proclaimed that said events could have been avoided if humanity had been less indifferent. He stated that had someone have intervened earlier, these events could have been avoided. Nonetheless, Mr. Wiesel still showed gratitude to those who intervened and fought those responsible for the hardship of himself and his people. However, he still did not understand why they did not do an intervention at an earlier time to avoid the suffering of thousands of people.
Wiesel’s speech shows how he worked to keep the memory of those people alive because he knows that people will continue to be guilty, to be accomplices if they forget. Furthermore, Wiesel knows that keeping the memory of those poor, innocent will avoid the repetition of the atrocity done in the future. The stories and experiences of Wiesel allowed for people to see the true horrors of what occurs when people who keep silence become “accomplices” of those who inflict pain towards humans. To conclude, Wiesel chose to use parallelism in his speech to emphasize the fault people had for keeping silence and allowing the torture of innocent
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.
In which millions of Jews were innocently killed and persecuted because of their religion. As a student who is familiar with the years of the holocaust that will forever live in infamy, Wiesel’s memoir has undoubtedly changed my perspective. Throughout the text, I have been emotionally touched by the topics of dehumanization, the young life of Elie Wiesel, and gained a better understanding of the Holocaust. With how dehumanization was portrayed through words, pondering my mind the most.
Holocaust. Death. Suffering. These are but a few of the words that may begin to describe this tragic period in the history of man. The Perils of Indifference and Night are both publications by the Elie Wiesel, one of the many victims to the Holocaust, but one of the very few victims who lived to tell his story.
Finally, the author expresses the dangers in ignorance and forgetfulness, “Because if we forget who the guilty are, we are accomplices” (Wiesel). He also conveys how if we forget the guilty, we do not care about what crimes they put forth. We cannot be ignorant to the oppressors, for the effect is the same as to side with them. In conclusion, Elie Wiesel persuades the audience and expresses his bias on neutrality during World War II by using his authority and personal
Memory Blessing or Curse Religious wars fought over beliefs were always fought between two sides and one is thought to have a winner and a loser victor and victim. In Elie Wiesel’s Noble speech “Hope, Despair, and Memory” he describes his experiences during a religious war that were more of an overpowering of people than a war no clash of metal, no hard fought fight, just the rounding up and killing of people with different beliefs that barely put up a fight. Elie Wiesel the author of the Noble lecture “Hope, Despair, and Memory” implores us to respond to the human suffering and injustice that happened in the concentration camps by remembering the past, so that the past cannot taint the future through his point of view, cultural experiences, as well as his use of rhetorical appeals. Wiesel uses his cultural experiences and point of view sot that he could prove he spent time and survived the concentration camps in order to communicate that the past must be remembered that way it cannot destroy the future, he spent time in a concentration camps and he