Rhetorical Analysis Of Elie Wiesel's Speech

“Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, 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” (Wiesel, 1999, para. 10). Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor and Nobel peace Laureate, demonstrates how the perils of indifference can affect the future to come. He strongly argues “indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred” (Wiesel, 1999, para. 9). Wiesel’s purpose was to point out to society that not only do we need to learn from our past, but change for the future. In 1945, Wiesel’s family was deported to an Auschwitz extermination camp for slave labor. Wiesel’s speech was set in the white house as part of the new millennium lecture. He starts off by directing his speech to the President, Mrs. Clinton, the members of congress, Ambassador of Holbrook, and excellences. However, the speech was intended to educate any listeners or readers about the perils of indifference. The author uses great strategies of pathos, use of stats, and

This was an effective strategy because it makes the reader think about the consequences of being indifferent. This ties the idea together that being indifferent only benefits the aggressor because the victim loses hope, which gives the aggressor more power. Wiesel (1999) used rhetorical questions like, "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?” (para. 21). He asked these questions near the end of his speech and purposely did not answer them so the readers were left with these thoughts in their heads. He wants the audience to take charge and not be so indifferent. This is a warning how we have not learned from our past and there is still ethnic cleansing happening