Elie Wiesel
The Perils of Indifference
delivered 12 April 1999,
Washington, D.C.
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from
audio.]
Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, Excellencies,
friends:
Fifty-four years ago to the day, a young Jewish boy from a small town in the Carpathian Mountains
woke up, not far from Goethe's beloved Weimar, in a place of eternal infamy called Buchenwald. He
was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again. Liberated
a day earlier by American soldiers, he remembers their rage at what they saw. And even if he lives to
be a very old man, he will always be grateful to them for that rage, and also for their compassion.
Though he did not understand their language, their eyes told him what he needed to know -- that
they, too, would remember, and bear witness.
And now, I stand before you, Mr. President -- Commander-in-Chief of the army that freed me, and
tens of thousands of others -- and I am filled with a profound and abiding gratitude to the American
people. "Gratitude" is a word that I cherish. Gratitude is what defines the humanity of the human
being. And I am grateful to you, Hillary, or Mrs. Clinton, for what you said, and for what you are
doing for children in the world, for the homeless, for the victims of injustice, the victims of destiny
and society. And I thank all of you for being here.
We are on the threshold of a new century, a new millennium. What will the legacy of this vanishing
century be? How will it be remembered in the new millennium? Surely it will be judged, and judged
severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms. These failures have cast a dark shadow over
humanity: two World Wars, countless civil wars, the senseless chain of assassinations (Gandhi, the
Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Sadat, Rabin), bloodbaths in Cambodia and Algeria, India and
Pakistan, Ireland and Rwanda, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Sarajevo and Kosovo; the inhumanity in the
gulag and the tragedy of Hiroshima. And, on a different level, of course, Auschwitz and Treblinka. So
much violence; so much indifference.
What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means "no difference." 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. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a
philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? 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?
Of course, indifference can be tempting -- more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look
away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our
hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair.
Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And, therefore,
their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference
reduces the Other to an abstraction.
Over there, behind the black gates of Auschwitz, the most tragic of all prisoners were the
"Muselmanner," as they were called. Wrapped in their torn blankets, they would sit or lie on the
ground, staring vacantly into space, unaware of who or where they were -- strangers to their
surroundings. They no longer felt pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They
were dead and did not know it.
Rooted in our tradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity then was not the
ultimate. We felt that to be abandoned by God was worse than to be punished by Him. Better an
unjust God than an indifferent one. For us to be ignored by God was a harsher punishment than to
be a victim of His anger. Man can live far from God -- not outside God. God is wherever we are. Even
in suffering? Even in suffering.
In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference,
after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a
great poem, a great symphony. One does something special for the sake of humanity because one is
angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times
may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it.
Indifference elicits no response. 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, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his
cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their
solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their
humanity, we betray our own.
Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment.
And this is one of the most important lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experiments in
good and evil.
In the place that I come from, society was composed of three simple categories: the killers, the
victims, and the bystanders. During the darkest of times, inside the ghettoes and death camps -- and
I'm glad that Mrs. Clinton mentioned that we are now commemorating that event, that period, that
we are now in the Days of Remembrance -- but then, we felt abandoned, forgotten. All of us did.
And our only miserable consolation was that we believed that Auschwitz and Treblinka were closely
guarded secrets; that the leaders of the free world did not know what was going on behind those
black gates and barbed wire; that they had no knowledge of the war against the Jews that Hitler's
armies and their accomplices waged as part of the war against the Allies. If they knew, we thought,
surely those leaders would have moved heaven and earth to intervene. They would have spoken out
with great outrage and conviction. They would have bombed the railways leading to Birkenau, just
the railways, just once.
And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew.
And the illustrious occupant of the White House then, who was a great leader -- and I say it with
some anguish and pain, because, today is exactly 54 years marking his death -- Franklin Delano
Roosevelt died on April the 12th, 1945. So he is
very much present to me and to us. No doubt, he
was a great leader. He mobilized the American
people and the world, going into battle, bringing
hundreds and thousands of valiant and brave
soldiers in America to fight fascism, to fight
dictatorship, to fight Hitler. And so many of the
young people fell in battle. And, nevertheless, his
image in Jewish history -- I must say it -- his
image in Jewish history is flawed.
The depressing tale of the St. Louis is a case in
point. Sixty years ago, its human cargo -- nearly
1,000 Jews -- was turned back to Nazi Germany.
And that happened after the Kristallnacht, after the first state sponsored pogrom, with hundreds of
Jewish shops destroyed, synagogues burned, thousands of people put in concentration camps. And
that ship, which was already in the shores of the United States, was sent back. I don't understand.
Roosevelt was a good man, with a heart. He understood those who needed help. Why didn't he
allow these refugees to disembark? A thousand people -- in America, the great country, the greatest
democracy, the most generous of all new nations in modern history. What happened? I don't
understand. Why the indifference, on the highest level, to the suffering of the victims?
But then, there were human beings who were sensitive to our tragedy. Those non-Jews, those
Christians, that we call the "Righteous Gentiles," whose selfless acts of heroism saved the honor of
their faith. Why were they so few? Why was there a greater effort to save SS murderers after the
war than to save their victims during the war? Why did some of America's largest corporations
continue to do business with Hitler's Germany until 1942? It has been suggested, and it was
documented, that the Wehrmacht could not have conducted its invasion of France without oil
obtained from American sources. How is one to explain their indifference?
And yet, my friends, good things have also happened in this traumatic century: the defeat of Nazism,
the collapse of communism, the rebirth of Israel on its ancestral soil, the demise of apartheid,
Israel's peace treaty with Egypt, the peace accord in Ireland. And let us remember the meeting, filled
with drama and emotion, between Rabin and Arafat that you, Mr. President, convened in this very
place. I was here and I will never forget it.
And then, of course, the joint decision of the United States and NATO to intervene in Kosovo and
save those victims, those refugees, those who were uprooted by a man, whom I believe that
because of his crimes, should be charged with crimes against humanity.
But this time, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond. This time, we intervene.
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? Are we less insensitive to the plight of victims of ethnic cleansing and other forms of
injustices in places near and far? Is today's justified intervention in Kosovo, led by you, Mr.
President, a lasting warning that never again will the deportation, the terrorization of children and
their parents, be allowed anywhere in the world? Will it discourage other dictators in other lands to
do the same?
What about the children? Oh, we see them on television, we read about them in the papers, and we
do so with a broken heart. Their fate is always the most tragic, inevitably. When adults wage war,
children perish. We see their faces, their eyes. Do we hear their pleas? Do we feel their pain, their
agony? Every minute one of them dies of disease, violence, famine.
Some of them -- so many of them -- could be saved.
And so, once again, I think of the young Jewish boy from the Carpathian Mountains. He has
accompanied the old man I have become throughout these years of quest and struggle. And
together we walk towards the new millennium, carried by profound fear and extraordinary hope.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/History/American-History/The-Perils-ofIndifference/7390
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/wiesel.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_RwGmYHyJ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdTt3ZZRhSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_RwGmYHyJ0
Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate, Elie Wiesel, gave this impassioned speech in the
East Room of the White House on April 12, 1999, as part of the Millennium Lecture series,
hosted by President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In the summer of 1944, as a teenager in Hungary, Elie Wiesel, along with his father, mother
and sisters, were deported by the Nazis to Auschwitz extermination camp in occupied Poland.
Upon arrival there, Wiesel and his father were selected by SS Dr. Josef Mengele for slave
labor and wound up at the nearby Buna rubber factory.
Daily life included starvation rations of soup and bread, brutal discipline, and a constant
struggle against overwhelming despair. At one point, young Wiesel received 25 lashes of the
whip for a minor infraction.
In January 1945, as the Russian Army drew near, Wiesel and his father were hurriedly
evacuated from Auschwitz by a forced march to Gleiwitz and then via an open train car to
Buchenwald in Germany, where his father, mother, and a younger sister eventually died.
Wiesel was liberated by American troops in April 1945. After the war, he moved to Paris and
became a journalist then later settled in New York. Since 1976, he has been Andrew Mellon
Professor in the Humanities at Boston University. He has received numerous awards and
honors including the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was
also the Founding Chair of the United States Holocaust Memorial. Wiesel has written over 40
books including Night, a harrowing chronicle of his Holocaust experience, first published in
1960.
At the White House lecture, Wiesel was introduced by Hillary Clinton who stated, "It was
more than a year ago that I asked Elie if he would be willing to participate in these
Millennium Lectures...I never could have imagined that when the time finally came for him
to stand in this spot and to reflect on the past century and the future to come, that we would
be seeing children in Kosovo crowded into trains, separated from families, separated from
their homes, robbed of their childhoods, their memories, their humanity."
http://the-vibe.co.uk/2011/11/08/elie-wiesel-the-perils-ofindifference/
Elie Wiesel: the perils of indifference
NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BY THEVIBEEDITOR LEAVE A COMMENT
By Chris McCarthy
For the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbours are of no consequences. Their lives are
meaningless. Their anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction.
Elie Wiesel, Washington D.C., 12 April 1999
For many who survived Hitler’s death camps the harrowing memories were unutterable. Some
lacked the capacity to rationalise the organised cruelty inflicted by their fellow man. Others
struggled to construct a description that adequately captured the unfathomable horror. For some
they neither wanted to understand nor tried to describe their experience; every fresh retelling only
brought recycled suffering.
For ten years Elie Wiesel didn’t write about his time in the Nazi concentration camps. Born in 1928 in
Sighet, Transylvania [now part of Romania], Wiesel grew up in a Jewish community. In 1944 the
Nazis arrived to ‘cleanse’ Sighet and Wiesel’s family were swept up and trucked west. At Auschwitz
he was separated from his mother and youngest sister, never to see them again. At Buchenwald he
watched his father succumb to malnutrition, dysentery and guard brutality.
In the mid-1950s, just before moving to New York City after a spell as a teacher in Paris, Wiesel
wrote about his experience in the camps for the first time in the book Night. He subsequently wrote
numerous plays, novels, essays, and short stories and his corpus of work now forms an important
part of Holocaust literature. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986 in recognition of his
message to mankind of “peace, atonement and human dignity”.
In April 1999 Wiesel was invited to speak to President Clinton and assembled guests at the White
House. Reflecting on the litany of failures of the “vanishing century” he gave a powerful, poetic and
stirring oration about the dangers of indifference towards the suffering of others. Interspersed with
his experiences during the Holocaust, the speech is invested with moral authority and emotional
appeal.
He opened the address by recalling his state of mind the day after being liberated from Buchenwald,
capturing beautifully his sense of numbness. It is told using a detached, third person perspective that
gives it a story-like quality:
He was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again.
Liberated a day earlier by American soldiers, he remembers their rage at what they say. And even if
he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful to them for that rage, and also for their
compassion.
The bulk of his speech is given to exploring the state of indifference and its chilling consequences. It’s
more thana tempting condition, Wiesel proposes, allowing us to live normally and enjoy a fine meal
as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals. It’s also a seductive proposition because
it’s awkward to be involved in another person’s pain and despair. In a deeply personal reflection,
Wiesel recalls how it felt to be the subject of that apathy, and why it was the indifference of God
that was the most difficult to reconcile:
We felt that to be abandoned by God was worse than to be punished by Him. Better an unjust God
than an indifferent one. For us to be ignored by God was a harsher punishment than to be a victim of
his anger.
At least anger, Wiesel said, can be a creative force or motivate people to fight injustice. Indifference
elicits no response and therefore it is always the “friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor.”
As Wiesel spoke, with memorable phrasing and eloquence, of the plight of the political prisoner in
his cell and the hungry children, you are stirred by hiskinshipwith all oppressed and disadvantaged
people:
Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction…Not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their
solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their
humanity, we betray our own.
Wiesel was accustomed to speaking truth to power. In 1985 he publicly confronted Ronald Reagan at
the White House over the President’s planned visit to a cemetery in West Germany where members
of the SS were buried. In his 1999 speech he rebuked the late President Roosevelt for his decision to
turn back a ship of 1,000 Jews to Nazi Germany after Krisatllnacht. It was a direct challenge to the
American leadership present to uphold their responsibilities as the world’s sole superpower:
Roosevelt was a good man, with a heart. He understood those people needed help. Why didn’t he
allow these refugees to disembark? A thousand people – in America, the great country, the greatest
democracy, the most generous of all new nations in modern history. What happened? I don’t
understand. Why the indifference, on the highest level, to the suffering of victims?
And yet, Wiesel continued, good things had also happened in this traumatic century: the defeat of
Nazism, the collapse of Communism, the demise of apartheid, the intervention in Kosovo, and peace
in Ireland. In the scholarly manner he had developed over decades of teaching, he posed a list of
rhetorical questions that sprung from the juxtaposition of the century’s horrors against its successes:
“Has the human being become less indifferent and more human? Have we really learned from our
experiences? Are we less insensitive to the plight of victims of ethnic cleansing and other forms of
injustice in places near and far?”
He doesn’t answer his questions. Instead, and with touching imagery, he concludes by coming full
circle and reminding us of the “young Jewish boy from the Carpathian Mountains”.
He has accompanied the old man I have become throughout these years of quest and struggle. And
together we walk towards the new millennium, carried by profound fear and extraordinary hope.
A remarkable speech, uncomfortable in places, Wiesel uses the moral authority of his own
experiences under the Nazis to challenge indifference towards genocide and global injustices. It is a
testament to Wiesel’s humanism, his power of expression, and a damning indictment of an
international community that said “never again” after the Holocaust.
Short summary of the speech:
The main point of Wiesel’s speech, given in the White House on the 54th anniversary of the
end of the second World War, is to denounce indifference and to praise those who stood up
for the victims of the Holocaust. He makes a point to praise President and Mrs. Clinton for
the actions they have taken to fight injustice, and then he begins by defining indifference,
especially in regard to human indifference toward the suffering of a neighbor: Yet, for the
person who is indifferent, his or her neighbors are of no consequence. And, therefore, their
lives are meaningless. He continues by describing the role indifference played during the
Holocaust and by calling out those who personified this condemning trait. Despite this
negativity, he also highlights some positive occurrences, such as the defeat of Nazism and
the collapse of communism. He asks if the world has grown up since then to become less
indifferent to its sufferings. While he does not answer this and other difficult questions, he
finishes the speech with a tone of progression: And together we walk towards the new
millennium, carried by profound fear and extraordinary hope.
Move 1: Suspend Judgment
Wiesel declares his opinions strongly in this speech, but while he obviously disapproves of
the bloodshed that occurred in the twentieth century, he hopes future generations will judge
for themselves just as strongly: How will it be remembered in the new millennium? Surely it
will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms. I think it is
completely understandable that he would believe this way because he was a victim of the
Holocaust. He offers all the praise he can to those who made an effort to save the victims.
For example, in the opening paragraph, he thanks the American soldiers for the rage they
felt at what they saw and for their compassion.
Move 2: Define significant parts and how they are related
Wiesel describes indifference in depth and relates it to the enemy by its non-responsive
nature. Not only does it serve as a sin for those who commit it, but, because it naturally
helps the enemy, it also serves as a punishment for the victim. Furthermore, Wiesel
discusses some beneficial events and relates those to an active response, possibly showing
that we can learn from our experiences.
Move 3: Make the implicit explicit
Underlying this whole speech is Wiesel’s belief that something more could have and should
have been done to finish the war. He says, “Our only miserable consolation was that we
believed that Aushwitz and Treblinka were closely guarded secrets… And now we knew, we
learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew.” Also, although
it is the 54th anniversary of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s death, Wiesel must share his
disappointment in FDR’s lack of action. He explicitly states, “No doubt, he was a great
leader,” but his disappointment shows when he says, “…with some anguish and pain,…his
image in Jewish history is flawed.”
Move 4: Look for patterns
Patterns of repetition: Wiesel begins his with a reference to himself as a young boy on the
day after American soldiers liberated his concentration camp. He changes back to the first
person for the middle of his speech, but at the end, he changes again to refer to that young
boy, whom he says has accompanied him throughout his life. This is to show that what
happened to him during the war has forever affected him and that he can never forget both
the atrocities and the redemption.
Patterns of binary opposition: When Wiesel starts to define indifference, he uses binary
oppositions to support his definition: "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.” Indifference, then, is a state of lifelessness and inaction. Binary
opposition is also used in the last sentence of the speech, when Wiesel describes his
lifelong companion as that boy from the Carpathian Mountains who has brought both
“profound fear and extraordinary hope.” Although he has witnessed some of the worst
humanity can offer, he still hopes for a better future for humankind.
Move 5: Keep reformulating questions and explanations
Does the twenty-first century automatically signify a growth in compassion for fellow
humans?
Are our interventions in other countries and their atrocities of pure motives?
Have we finally come to a point to realize that wars and violence end the lives of innocent
children?
When will the world raise its voice in response to all of the injustices?
“The Perils of Indifference “by Elie Wiesel
Holocaust is a word that is associated with death and inhuman treatment. Holocaust
is a word that suggests death and indifference. In April 1945, after struggling with starvation
and brutal punishment in Buchenwald, Elie Wiesel was liberated from a concentration
camp. In April 1999, Wiesel was invited by Hillary Clinton to participate in the Millennium
Lectures; his famous speech “The Perils of Indifference” is a call to action in order to defend
the human life. Elie Wiesel as a survivor from the Holocaust appeals to the human
conscience, by relating his experience. In his effective speech, the author emphasizes the
word “indifference” in order to establish a closer connection between the past and the
present. He captures his audience with facts, but in his emotional speech the category
pathos can be easily recognized.
First of all, in the context of his speech Wiesel targets his audience effectively;
it is authorities and governors like the President Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the White
House. They are challenged and compromised to fight in order to stop the atrocities against
innocent people without faith. Authorities are called to work toward the human rights. The
author is grateful for his rescue from the concentration camp. He uses words like “profound
and abiding gratitude” to emphasize the value of being saved by militaries. Wiesel reports
facts to his audience and he adds the word “indifference”, which is constantly repeated in
his speech. Again, the author exacerbates his speech by exerting words with strong meaning
like compassion, judge, and moral. For example: “We are the threshold of a new century, a
new millennium. What will the legacy of this vanishing century be? How will it be remember
in the new millennium? Surely it will be judged, and judged severely in both moral and
metaphysical terms.”(Wiesel). The author shapes his message with words that empower the
capacity to drive the audience in the hold picture. In addition, the purpose of Wiesel’s
speech is to say to the world his own story in order to prevent death and indifference, so it
does not happen again. It is a call to action to defend life and human rights.
Equally important, the author’s word choice is completely objective. By questioning
the audience and himself, the author develops a technique that successfully affects people’s
thoughts. For example: “What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means ‘no
difference’ A strange an unnatural state in which lines blur between light and darkness,
dusk and dawn , crime and punishment , cruelty and compassion, good and evil.”(Wiesel).
There is a comparison and parallelism in his statement between simple things that people
know well. Then, the audience is easily approached.
Therefore, in the category logos Wiesel summarizes facts chronologically. He
mentions WWII, and he pictures his speech with well-known names like Gandhi, The
Kennedys, Martin Luther King, and others. He points out their unfair assassinations. In
addition the author remarks the bloodbaths in Cambodia, Nigeria, Sarajevo, Kosovo, and
Hiroshima. But the main description is the starvation and punishment that he faced.
At this point, racism, indifference, and suffering are the facts that that Wiesel
explains. By questioning Roosevelt’s attitude and questioning his reason of “Why didn’t he
allow refugees to disembark”, the author appeals to the category ethos by looking for the
right thing to do when human life is compromised.
Simultaneously, the category pathos is easily recognized in Wiesel’s speech because
“The Perils of Indifference” close an impassioned message. It allows the audience to
visualize a young Wiesel being part of the dark story with suffering, pain, brutal punishment
and starvation. Wiesel describes himself as a Jewish boy “without joy in his heart” even
when he was free even though he felt the compassion from the American soldiers. The
author described how his religious beliefs were affect by saying “We felt that to be
abandoned by God was worse than to be punishment by Him.” But his solid point of view
and morals closes his speech with the tough and unforgettable statement: “Man can live far
from God – not outside God. God is wherever we are. Even in suffering? Even in suffering.”
The meaning of this statement restated the author’s values and strong religious
beliefs. Wiesel remembers with details the hopeless and desolation that people couldn’t
resist while the holocaust changed millions of people lives. Then the category pathos and
ethos are in conjunction; it makes the speech double effective.
Consequently, Elie Wiesel restates his personal story and the Holocaust in his
speech. The author points out the effects of the WWII, the indifference and punishment,
and the change of millions of people’s lives because of the Holocaust. The categories
pathos, logos and ethos are completed related in his speech. The author places his audience
in the past by relating the story, but his imminent call is to fight in the present, so we don’t
allow these atrocities to happen again is the principal subject of Wiesel’s speech. By the end
of his speech Wiesel persuades his audience to reach the goal of protecting human life and
human rights. His great speech concludes with hope in the future.
Elie Wiesel's "The Perils of Indifference" Analysis
At the end of World War II, a young boy was finally free from the cruelties of Nazi Germany after
being liberated by the American resistance military. He had faced the worst of inhumanity at
Auschwitz, the ghettos, and Buchenwald. There, he turned his head and became a stranger to his
father in the last moments of his life--a time he would never forget. He was later liberated at
Buchenwald when the American resistance military took over the camp. Later in his life, he would
learn about the strangers to his own struggle--the members of society that turned their heads to the
inhumanity that took place during World War II. In the spring of 1999 author of Night and Noble
Peace Prize Winner, Elie Wiesel, gave his speech, The Perils of Indifference, as part of the Millennium
Lecture Series hosted by white house leaders. In Wiesel’s speech, he defined the nature of
indifference in regards to tragic events that happened in the past century including his struggle as a
young boy caught in the middle of World War II. Wiesel presented his speech carefully by speaking
with the appropriate pauses and tone so that his audience felt the message he was trying to convey.
Throughout the speech, it is easy for the audience to understand Wiesel’s struggle. By speaking with
a wide range of tones such as anger, hope, and apathy, the audience can understand Wiesel’s
feelings towards the things lost in the twenty-first century and the future of humanity. When
reflecting on his liberation, he speaks with hope and says, “he was finally free,” but he also speaks
with apathy when saying that, “there was no joy in his heart.” In the one instance, when Wiesel
states “the Pentagon knew, the state department knew” of his struggles, he does an excellent job of
revisiting the past with anger. This makes it seem as though he was just finding out for the first time
that he could have been saved earlier when he says, “now we know, we learned, we discovered.” In
this instance, Wiesel allows the audience to revisit the past with him so that they too can feel the
anger he has towards the indifference of the world. The audience can better understand the
speaker’s attitude toward the twenty-first century through Wiesel’s repetition of contrasting tones
when he concludes his speech saying with a mixture of hope, apathy, and anger that, “together we
walk towards the new millennium, carried by profound fear and extraordinary hope.”
In addition to contrasting tones, Wiesel also uses a plentiful amount of pauses in order to emphasize
words and phrases that he wants the audience to reflect on. When first presenting the audience
with the word “indifference”, he speaks loudly and pauses after the phrase “no difference.” This can
be heard in Figure 1 above. This pause allows the audience to reflect on Wiesel’s definition of
indifference, which prepares them for the rest of his speech. Another word Wiesel does an excellent
job at encouraging the audience to think about is the word “gratitude”. After the third time he
repeats this word he pauses. This allows the audience to better understand Wiesel’s appreciation
towards the gratitude others display. Another time the audience can better understand Wiesel’s
feelings toward indifference is when he says, “In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what
makes the human being inhuman.” Two words Wiesel emphasizes in this stance through dramatic
pause are “indifference” and, “inhuman.” Through these pauses, the audience can make the
connection that to be indifferent is to be inhuman, which is Wiesel’s overall message.
From a young boy trapped in a concentration, to an old man witnessing consistent acts of
indifference, Elie Wiesel invites his audience to feel the message he has toward the future of
humanity in his speech, The Perils of Indifference. Through the use of contrasting tones and
dramatic pause, Wiesel brings clarity to his overall message, which is to be indifferent is to be
inhuman.
A Rhetorical Analysis of Elie Wiesel's "The Perils of Indifference"
By NOELLE C VISCONTI
rough draft,
Intro:
-At the end of a century, and the start of a new millennium, our world has witnessed both
atrocities and amazing displays of human compassion.
-One of the greatest displays of violence and compassion is in World War II.
-The Nazi regime concentration camps, with gas chambers and incinerators, tried to
decimate an entire religious group and promote anti-Semitism.
-However, the courageous displays of soldiers through Europe and The United States
showed there was still hope for a better future.
-Elie Wiesel, the author of Night, describes both the violence and courage in speech, but
also describes the indifference of the bystander, which is far worse than even hate or anger.
Thesis: In "The Perils of Indifference," Elie Wiesel successfully orates to the kairos of the
approaching new millennium while using ethos in order to maintain the audience's
attention to create a powerful nd moving discourse.
Main Idea #1: Referring to the kairos of the forthcoming millennium and the end of the 20 st
century, Elie Weisel uses this idea in order to show the importance of a new start to never
again create the turbulence of the past.
-Refers to the "threshold of a new century, a new millennium" at the beginning and at the
end he says that "we walk towards the new millennium."
-Uses alliteration to describe the urgency of changing indifference throughout his speech.
-Starts the essay explaining the violence and chaos of the past century, from the
assassinations, civil wars, and "dark shadows [cast] over humanity."
-Then he slowly delves into the compassion and kindness of humanity, from the Christians
during the Holocaust, "the collapse of communism," and the "demise of apartheid."
-Questions if the past has truly helped us to bring about a better future for ourselves and
the future generations
-Uses the children as a way to appeal to pathos-how "so many of them could be saved."
(This transitions to Main Idea #2.)
Main Idea #2: Uses his knowledge and experience of the past to express the importance of
stopping indifference.
-He survived Buchenwald.
-Has seen and experienced unfathomable atrocities in this world; we could learn so much
about how to stop these acts of violence in the future.
-Has met many political leaders, such as Hilary Clinton, and been to various meetings of
political leaders.
-Understands the "Seductive[ness]" of indifference and how a person would not want to
take a stand
Conclusion:
-With his experience and the impending future, Elie Wiesel expresses the necessity of
stopping indifference to give future generations renewed hope and promise