Rhetorical Analysis Of The Perils Of Indifference By Elie Wiesel

Six million Jewish people lost their lives between 1933 and 1945, the twelve-year span where people were brutally murdered based purely on religion. This historical tragedy became known as the Holocaust. Historians believe that one million Jewish people were killed in Auschwitz, a concentration camp that was responsible for some of these vicious murders over a five-year duration. Journalist and author, Elie Wiesel, survived the Holocaust and Auschwitz when so many were not as lucky. His horrors in Auschwitz inspired him to become an activist speaking out against indifference in the world. Through the use of rhetorical questions, repetition, and pathos, Elie Wiesel effectively argues that indifference is present throughout the 20th century.

He uses questions like, “What will the legacy of this vanishing century be? How will it be remembered in the new millennium?” in order to make his audience think. These questions make the audience wonder how their actions will go down in history in the new millennium. It also convinces the rising generation to consciously make a positive mark in history. By using rhetorical questions Wiesel subtly convinces the audience to care more about how their indifference will affect the upcoming generations. Elie Wiesel also uses repetition right through his speech. He repeats the word “indifference” meaning the lack of interest, concern, or sympathy. He tells his audience that he knows indifference is the easiest option but that indifference leads to suffering in all forms. Through repetition, he persuades his audience that indifference is the reason for many tragedies from the Holocaust to assassinations. He appeals to his audience by using pathos present in his repetition of “indifference.” he explains that the neutrality of indifference “is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor” (cite) he works to convince the audience to end their indifference because it does more harm than good. By not actively working to help the oppressed those who are indifferent avail the aggressor. Throughout his entire speech, Elie Wiesel effectively argues the

Multiple times, he inappropriately describes his audience as “friends.” Wiesel states “And yet, my friends, good things have also happened in this traumatic century.” Wiesel is in a formal setting, the White House, giving a formal speech. The phrase “friends” could seem offensive and improper to many people in the room. It may be argued that Wiesel lacks respect for many of his listeners. To many, the word “friends” insinuate a sense of familiarity. Because Wiesel was addressing the government including President Clinton it would be improper to use a word that indicates a pally relationship. To some audience members, the lack of formality may debilitate Wiesel's