Famous author and Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel claims in his speech, “The Perils of Indifference,” that indifference is dangerous. He supports his claim by first defining indifference as “a blurred line between light and dark,” then by illustrating how indifference can benefit the aggressor and be a friend to the enemy. Finally, Wiesel’s imagery and diction helps support his claim. For example, by listing all of humanity’s failures he helps us imagine how dangerous indifference can really be. Wiesel’s purpose is to illustrate all of the dangers of indifference by using personal and historical experiences in order to prevent the same failures from happening again. He wrote this speech with a fluctuating tone. He starts off his speech being …show more content…
More specifically, Wiesel argues that indifference is a friend of the enemy. He writes, “...Indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim.” In this speech Wiesel is suggesting that we should have no desire to be the enemy therefore, we shouldn’t choose to be indifferent. In conclusion, Wiesel’s belief is that indifference is not the path to take because all it does is make the situation worse. Weisel is correct because, not doing anything is just as bad as doing something wrong. More specifically, if you don’t help the victims of the situation then in the end you are siding with the enemy. For example, if something like the Holocaust were to happen again and everyone else chose to be indifferent to the situation again then we would just be benefiting the aggressor. Some of the countries sat back and watched all of the people at the Holocaust be killed. They did nothing to help, which resulted in more people dying. Although some people might object that indifference is dangerous, Weisel has many points to prove that indifference is a sin. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that Weisel is correct in saying that indifference is