Summary Of Elie Wiesel's Perils Of Indifference

Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, in his speech, “Perils of Indifference,” argues that indifference is a dehumanizing weapon that America is guilty of practicing. He develops this assertion by first building his credibility to gain the audience’s trust, then defines the true meaning of indifference and America’s fondness of it, and finally moves the audience to action by providing a new way of thinking. Wiesel’s purpose is to motivate his audience to reflect on their past so that the same mistakes against humanity will not be repeated. He creates a critical tone to show the citizens of the United States that their attitudes towards indifference must change or the world of suffering never will. The beginning of Wiesel’s speech is based mainly

Wiesel is aware that most of the viewers are knowledgeable of the fact that he is a Holocaust survivor, and to emphasize this, he discusses his personal experience of those horrific times. This is beneficial to building his credibility because of the emotional context his experiences hold; the emotion will hook the audience’s attention and will cling them to his words. The first personal experience he discusses is the time young Wiesel was freed. “Fifty-four years ago to the day, a young Jewish boy from a small town…was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart.” (Wiesel pg. 1) The reason he includes a personal experience falls under the attempt to gain his credibility as a reliable man. The audience is drawn to him because Wiesel is describing a monumental moment from history that they were not there for, and because of the truthfulness his words hold they are beginning to view him as an honest man. Combining this with the emotion it holds provokes sympathy from the audience and increases their will to listen. At this point he has gained his credibility by mentioning personal events, now he will appeal to the audience

Instead, he makes the effort to define the true meaning of indifference. It is necessary for him to define the truth of indifference so that the audience is aware of Wiesel’s perspective on it. His method of explaining is defined as an antithesis. Wiesel states sets of words together that contradict each other; this isn’t meant to confuse the audience but to illustrate a clearer interpretation of what indifference means. “What is indifference?... A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil.” (Wiesel pg.2) This is a creative technique to use so that the audience understands how indifference is not only another word for disinterest, but also an attitude that pins someone between good and bad. Wiesel does not want the audience to ever view indifference as a positive approach when dealing with the world’s suffering. He does not directly define it as negative, but instead asks rhetorical questions to describe the adverse word. “Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?” (Wiesel pg.2) These questions are sarcastic-like, and this is because despite the words sounding pleasant the context is