Another typical characteristic of Wiesel’s pieces is employing logos as definition and description. Throughout The Perils of Indifference, Wiesel uses an extended and multifaceted definition of the term indifference. The author starts out by stating that “Etymologically, the word means ‘no difference’”, or in other words the most common definition of indifference is uniformity (The Perils of Indifference 1). Wiesel then further qualified this definition as an unfamiliar state of opposing ideas. Qualification. as known as clarification, of Wiesel’s definition of is vital to the development of Indifference in his piece is vital because it pinpoints exactly what the author want the audience to understand from his speech. By stating exactly what …show more content…
he means, Wiesel eliminates any potential confusion the audience may have and persuades the audience more effectively because there is no confusion or misconstruing of points. To accompany each definition, Wiesel briefly describes each new aspect of the definition in a few sentences following the new claim. He does this multiple times throughout his speech to qualify and narrow the boundaries of this broader claim. For example, right after Wiesel states that indifference is an end, his following sentences discuss how this makes indifference an enemy while relating the definition to political unrest (The Perils of Indifference 2). Aside from describing exactly what Wiesel means after redefining indifference, he describes his experience with the Holocaust. When Wiesel uses logic to subtly play with the audience’s emotions in his favor, the persuasive aspect of his piece is almost flawless. Another technique he employed is the development of ethos, pathos, and logos. He built logos through definition and description. Pathos is found throughout the speech in his use of past events to positively disturb the audience. Wiesel’s ability to upset the audience with his experiences provokes an emotion of pity from the audience. For example, he states that the prisoners “…no longer felt pain, hunger, thirst.They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead and did not know it”; in the camps the prisoners existed, but with nothing to live for, which is a horrifying image (The Perils of Indifference 2). Infusion of these types of quotes, Wiesel can elicit uncomfortable emotions from the audience with these incredibly gruesome descriptions. Wiesel builds ethos through his breadth of knowledge and the mere fact of his survival of the Holocaust. According to the article, “Rhetorical Analysis” by Chelsea Michelle, the credibility of the author is the most effective method of persuasion. She states “When the audience feels like they know and can trust the author or speaker the argument is much more convincing and proves to be more effective”, in response to Elie Wiesel speech (Michelle). Wiesel’s already established credibility from surviving the Holocaust combined with the honor of the President asking him to speak enhances his credibility and makes the audience trust him and are more likely to assimilate with his ideas because they trust him. When looking at other pieces from Holocaust survivors and non-survivors, the method of description is mostly employed.
The tone of the pieces are incredibly different. In Hate Speech Has a Friend in Silence: Lessons from the Holocaust speech at the Remembrance day Celebration, the author, not being a survivor, took a different approach. She used a copious amount of description of what the general concept of the Holocaust was and what the survivors endured. The purpose of her speech remembrance and prevention of such horrific events for the future as the number of survivors and authentic survival stories is decreasing and future generations will learn about the Holocaust solely from books. Her audience was Holocaust survivors, their families, and the world as the event was broadcasted. She also used this in the current election, though we may not like the outcomes, it is now that we must prevent a smaller scale version of this happen under Trump’s Presidency (Pritzker). She also makes a comment on theoretic in the early part of her speech “We humans have within us the capacity to create realities, good and evil, with speech and with our words”, words are incredibility powerful and harnessing them is dangerous (Pritzker). This tone is positive as she uses her voice to help others and this uplifting spirit with the positivity of words, this tone contradicts the style of Wiesel in his pieces, however both are …show more content…
effective. In Kitty Hart-Moxon’s speech at the Holocaust Museum Memorial event, she took a more somber method to express her views. Just like all the other speakers, Hart-Moxon describes her experience in detail. Both Wiesel and Hart-Moxon use their words to blame others for not stepping in faster when they knew that people were being murdered and killed unjustly. The graphic descriptions attempt to show the audience all the atrocities they endured during this horrific event and the failures of the government. Both Wiesel and Hart- Moxon were speaking at a memorial event which means they were speaking to a similar audience. Both authors did not need to establish their credibility throughout their piece as they already have the credibility because they have lived through the Holocaust and are considered primary sources and they were both asked to speak and so they must have some credibility if they are asked to speak. The difference between these two pieces is the tone used and the purpose of them. For Wiesel, his tone was spiteful and his purpose was to provoke disturbing thoughts from the audience in order to persuade. Hart-Moxon’s tone was more positive in that we should remember what happened and prevent it, her purpose was only to remember and nothing more (Hart-Moxon). Both tones are effective for the time periods. Both pieces are fairly close together, however, Wiesel’s speech was given closer to the date of the Holocaust, though he still had many years to reflect and develop his thoughts as a writer and rhetorician, whereas Hart-Moxon’s piece was in the new millennium and entirely different culture than the time of Wiesel’s speech. Spite in today’s society is not received well but but compassion is a more relatable and authentic tone that connects with audiences as the times have changed. Wiesel has also taken ownership of the spiteful tone of Holocaust pieces and so in order to see a new breed of Holocaust pieces and stop the monotonous and boring spiteful pieces that the audience will be bored with, Hart-Moxon needed to remain positive. A bored audience is not easily persuaded as they get diluted in the fact that they have already read pieces with negative sentiment and they need something new. One of the most rhetorically effective individuals in the course of history is Adolf Hitler. His speeches moved an entire population to hate another race and justify the murder of millions. Hitler single-handed came incredibly close to sending an entire race into extinction as if six million people was not satisfying enough. How did he do it? Hitler, though it is sickening to admit, was a rhetorical genius. According to the article “Hitler’s Rhetorical Theory” By Bruce Loebs of Idaho State University, there is a science behind rhetoric and how to effectively employ it (Loebs). He found that Hitler was effective by lying, stating simple but developed reasonings, constant repetition, and providing “all- or- nothing reasoning” in order to justifying the argument (Loebs 6). He also emphasized the people respond better to the emotions of the spoken word and that is mostly how Hitler managed to get a response from his intended audience. His tone in his pieces were knowledge and authoritarian which gained him credibility and the support he was looking for. In Hitler’s piece, to the Reichstag on September 1, 1939, just before the beginning of the Holocaust, all of the theories in the Loeb’s article are true. In the matter of one paragraph, Hitler repeated the term “proposal” numerous times in his argument about his ideas and peace offerings with Poland. He also used specific phrasing to show that he was making more of the effort to create peace than other countries. Throughout the piece he used very simple language and built up false accusations and lies in order to make his efforts sound superior to the others. Along with the simple language, he also infused clear support for his points so they were totally flushed out. All of these rhetorical tactics were effective because he considered his audience and effectively targeted the methods to get the best response. He was effective and he was successful (Hitler). The tone of his piece was authoritative and knowledgeable which gained him credibility and audiences respond better to those who display knowledge on a subject and are confident. Confidence is intimidating and individuals tend to admire and respect those with confidence. The most powerful ability is to take this characteristic and convey it through a speech to others. The public reaction to the rhetoric of his piece was negative.
A major reaction to this piece is to refute many of his points. The article written by Clarence Page focuses mainly on the idea that America is not to blame for waiting, but choose to avoid entangling themselves in conflict until they could produce positive results (Page). The article was crafted soon after he gave his speech which should be considered when looking at the public reaction as ideas and ways of using rhetoric have changed over the years and the audience then and now may respond differently to rhetorical techniques. In a more recent article, a group Jewish individuals wrote an open letter to Elie Wiesel and reacted negatively to his current ideas of Jerusalem after not having been back since the Holocaust (An Open…). The public’s reactions are as expected because individuals do not react well to be blamed and having their country blamed, placing blame makes individuals uncomfortable and so it is
avoided. Wiesel, among many other established writers and speaker, use and re-invent rhetoric in order to persuade their audience. The tone of each piece is imperative when forming a connection with the audience and the speaker as well as other rhetorical techniques. This method has been employed by many great speakers throughout history. Hitler used this method to convince an entire country to develop an anti-sentiment toward another race of human. Rhetoric, in the simplest form, is the most effective combination of techniques to persuade an audience of the author's ideas.
Thesis- Elie Weisel argued his stance on indifference, successfully to his audiences, utilizing pathos, ethos, and logos.
Wiesel appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos in Night. The reader’s logic is not so much directly appealed to, but indirectly the description of the events causes the reader to...
Wiesel’s autobiography Night easily displays the dehumanization of the Jews. Wiesel clearly sees this process of the Germans taking away the Jews humanity. On the very last page of the book, Wiesel observes, “From the depths of a mirror, a corpse was contemplating me. The look in his eyes as he gazed at me has never left me.” By saying this he knows that he is someone different. The events that he suffered through has affected him and as much as he hates it, he has no humanity
Speeches are given for a purpose. Whether it is for persuasion, or education, or even entertainment, they all target certain parts of people’s minds. This speech, The Perils of Indifference, was given by Elie Wiesel with intention to persuade his audience that indifference is the downfall of humanity, and also to educate his audience about his conclusions about the Holocaust and the corresponding events. He was very successful in achieving those goals. Not only was the audience enlightened, but also President Bill Clinton, and the First Lady, Hillary Clinton, themselves were deeply touched by Wiesel’s words.
Along with rhetorical appeals, Wiesel also uses many rhetorical devices such as parallelism and anaphora. Wiesel depicts parallelism when he says, “to fight fascism, to fight dictatorship, to fight Hitler” (Wiesel lines 103-104). The parallelism and anaphora, in the quote, provide emphasis on the discrimination and abuse that has taken place around the world. Repeating the same initial phrase shows the significance of the words Wiesel is speaking. Wiesel mentions the victims of this extreme tragedy when he states,” for the children in the world, for the homeless for the victims of injustice, the victims of destiny and society.” (Wiesel lines 17-19). This use of anaphora and parallelism emphasize the amount of people the Holocaust has affected and impacted. The parallelism being used adds value to his opinions and balances the list of people Wiesel is making in his speech.
In the eyes of Elie Wiesel, author of Night, indifference whether it be in relationship abuse or another problem, is mentally damaging and needs to be eliminated. In his memoir, Night, Elie Wiesel illustrates how indifference can harm the mind of the victim when he says, “Never shall I forget the nocturnal silence that deprived me for all eternity of the desire to live,” (Night 34). In this, Wiesel is speaking of his first night in Auschwitz. When he mentions silence he is referring to the indifference that the Jews in concentration camps faced from the rest of the world. Wiesel refers to that night as the time he lost his desire to live because he saw so much indifference toward the suffering of the inmates and the horrific things that were happening to them. After this, his desire to stay alive was destroyed because he watched as the world stood by, indifferent to the senseless murder of millions. Throught this, Wiesel illustrates that indifference will impact people for the rest of their lives. Because indifference
Journal Entry #1 Wiesel says this because he wants to keep the Holocaust from happening again. He probably meant that it is selfish to keep something to yourself when it is important and you can prevent it from happening. When he was being tortured, the other citizens did nothing to help. Maybe he just wants to make up for what others did not do for him. I agree and disagree with his statement.
Elie Wiesel has gone through more in life than any of us could ever imagine. One of my favorite quotes from him says, “To forget a holocaust is to kill twice.” In his novel “Night” we are given an in-depth look at the pure evil that was experienced during the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. We see as Wiesel goes from a faithful, kind Jewish boy to a survivor. As he experiences these events they change him drastically. We first see a boy with a feeling of hope and ignorance as his hometown is occupied and he’s moved into the ghettos. Then as he’s transferred to a concentration camp he questions his faith and slowly loses a sense of who he once was. But all of this puts him in an important position, he knows that he must share with the world what
It was the end of the war and he no longer has a family after he was relocated and wiesel is basically a walking corpse. “And in spite of myself, a prayer formed inside me, a prayer to this God in whom I no longer believed.” was written in page 91 which clearly states that he no longer believed in God. Now the last piece of evidence to prove that he doesn't care for others anymore would by when his father left the land of the living. On page 112 Wiesel writes how he felt about his passing ‘And deep inside me, if I could have searched the recesses of my feeble conscience, I might have something like: Free at
Wiesel’s loss of religion becomes the loss of identity, humanity, selfishness, and decency.... ... middle of paper ... ... This man is obviously beside himself and does not trust anyone except Hitler, his archenemy.
‘Oh God, Master of the Universe, give me the strength never to do what Rabbi Eliahu’s son has done’” (Wiesel 91). The topic of a father and son relationship is extremely personal to Wiesel, which makes him hark back to how he was raised: religiously. Though clouded with a sense of reality from his experience in the camps, Wiesel still has hints of hope in his view of the world from his upbringing in Sighet. Thus, our upbringing affects much of the way we see the
The tone of the novel is greatly influenced through the fact that the story is autobiographical. There seems to be only one agenda utilized by Elie Wiesel in regards to the tone of the story as he presents the information for the readers’ evaluation. The point of the story is to provide the reader with an emotional link to the horror of the Holocaust through the eyes of one who experienced those horrors. Wiesel speaks from a distance that is often found in autobiographies. He presents the facts as to what he saw, thought, and felt during those long years in the camps.
In “The Perils of Indifference” Elie Wiesel uses several techniques to get his point across. Three of them in the speech are Ethos, Repetition, and Pathos. He uses a combination of the three elements throughout the paragraphs of his speech to attract the readers. The combination of these elements help draw the reader’s emotions and interest towards his subject. He focuses on word choice that would pertain to his audience’s level of vocabulary.
In April, 1945, Elie Wiesel was liberated from the Buchenwald concentration camp after struggling with hunger, beatings, losing his entire family, and narrowly escaping death himself. He at first remained silent about his experiences, because it was too hard to relive them. However, eventually he spoke up, knowing it was his duty not to let the world forget the tragedies resulting from their silence. He wrote Night, a memoir of his and his family’s experience, and began using his freedom to spread the word about what had happened and hopefully prevent it from happening again. In 1999, he was invited to speak at the Millennium Lectures, in front of the president, first lady, and other important governmental figures,. In his speech, “The Perils of Indifference”, he uses rhetoric devices to get emotional responses and to connect with the audience. He wants to create awareness of the dangers of indifference and show how there needs to be change. His speech eloquently calls out the government for their lack of response during the Holocaust, and warns against continued disregard for the struggles of others. He sees indifference as being the ally of the enemy, and without compassion there is no hope for the
(Commire 175) says Wiesel in an interview. This shows that the Holocaust is so ingrained in his mind that he cannot talk about the subject without it hurting him. It may also represent how he respects his friends who died. Throughout Elbagirs article, “Child Soldiers Battle Traumas in Congo Rehab,” she mentions how the children, who were forced to join the army, now struggle with many problems, mentally. “They all have abandonment issues,” Rahima Choffy states.