Analysis Of Elie Wiesel's The Perils Of Indifference

In the East room of the White House during the 12th of April 1999, Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a Holocaust survivor, elaborates in his hopeful speech, “The Perils of Indifference,” the apathy of the American government to the sufferings of the people victimized by the tragic past to show how indifference can cause misery to other people. By stating his personal experiences, questioning his audience, and by citing proofs and facts, he was able to appeal to his audience emotionally and logically; thus, conveying his message of hope to welcome the new century and move them towards social action and away from indifference. Wiesel’s purpose is to share his experiences in order to remind the world, not just his audience, that people

This is an effective way to persuade someone and to make them listen; but Wiesel not only rationalize to his audience logically, he also approached them emotionally, which in return, made his assertions stronger. It may seem that Wiesel acknowledges the reasons why they were being indifferent, but his audience would feel otherwise. His tone with the hint of sarcasm implies that he only concede to that idea to show his point indirectly that indifference is bad and makes the victims like him meaningless and insignificant and small to his audience. It also introduced the fact that it makes the indifferent people just as bad as the oppressors. His claim that a “person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence… Indifference reduces the Others to an abstraction” is supported by his example of the situation of the Muselmanner (2). Because his claims were always supported, his claims no longer sound merely claims but facts. He shared the traumatizing experiences and the state of the Muselmanner by evoking sadness and empathy to his audience as he says that the Muselmanner were “wrapped in their torn blankets or lie on the ground… they no longer felt pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They were dead and did not know it” (2-3). Although it may be close to the truth, Wiesel might have exaggerated the

He drew his audience closer by logically giving them examples and situations wherein anger and hatred is better than being apathetic. He also gave an ambiguous statement “anger can at times be creative” to provoke his audience to think how would anger be creative and better than not doing anything (3)? By solidifying that “one does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses” would his audience realize that what Wiesel was claiming is probably right (3). This would affect his audience in a way that they would start to look in his perspective more attentively with curiosity, guilt, and interest combine. Wiesel purposely divides “You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it” shortly similar to what he also did to his claim that “indifference is not a response. 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…” to create an emphasis on each sentence (3). Besides the shortness of each sentence and lack of conjunctions, his repetition of the word “you” and “indifference” to both claims added to the focus he was trying to put in his