Brandon McCormick Dr. Lyn J.

Freymiller CAS 137H 25 September 2013 A Rhetorical Analysis of The Perils of Indifference In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. This is a point that is asserted in a speech by Eliezer Elie Wiesel on April 12, 1999. The speech was part of the White House Millennium Lecture Series that was hosted by President Bill Clinton and the First Lady Hillary Clinton, and was delivered in the presence of the President, the First Lady, and over 200 dignitaries. It was also broadcast on international television. This speech is rhetorically fascinating as it tries to deliver its message to millions of people from different countries, cultures, and backgrounds and does so in an effective way. Because of this, the piece warrants an extensive rhetorical analysis for the aforementioned reason, but also because it was written and delivered by one of the foremost experts on the Holocaust and moral issues. Elie Wiesel has looked evil in the eye and now speaks with great eloquence from his vast personal experience. This analysis will break down the argument asserted by Wiesel into the three basic proofs: ethos, logos, and pathos. Included in his ethical appeal, I will explore Wiesels kairos or timing. I will also include some thoughts on the brief introduction given by Hillary Clinton in this analysis, as it gives an important preface to the speech that works as part of the ethical appeal. These appeals work in conjunction to effectively relay his message so that his audience will take note of what he is saying and be wary of the perils of indifference in the future. Also, I will look at the opinions of others who have analyzed the speech.

Ethical Appeal, Including Kairotic Elements Elie Wiesel is recognized as one of the foremost experts on the Holocaust. As Alexandra Glynn writes in her analysis of the speech, He is also a kind of public person who speaks with moral authority on moral issues.(Elie Wiesel's 'Perils of Indifference' and the Ownership of Words, Ideographs, and Archetypal Metaphors). Glynn is referencing the credibility that Wiesel had before he even began to speak. This comes from Wiesels status as an expert on the topic. The audience becomes aware of this expertise through the introduction delivered by Hillary Clinton. Wiesel has written over 40 books, including his publication for which he his most widely known, Night. Because of his writings, he is considered to be one of the most important writers on the Holocaust. He was also awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal. Wiesel also served as Chairman for the Presidential Commission on the Holocaust and led the effort to create the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. This means that members of the audience, who were not familiar with Wiesels life experiences, were now informed because of the introduction, and by knowledge that much of his audience had before his presentation. Wiesel is recognized as an expert on the topic, which provides him with the ethos that he needs to effectively deliver his message on indifference. Wiesel knew of the introduction before he delivered the speech and effectively utilized it; thus allowing him to spend the majority of his speech delivering his message, not worrying about his credibility that was already established by the introduction, and by the audiences prior knowledge. Wiesel does, however, take some time during his speech to establish credibility on his own. Much of Wiesels credibility comes from his experiences during the Holocaust, as he was imprisoned in the Auschwitz concentration camp where he was forced to work at a rubber plant.

He also spent time in the Buchenwald concentration camp. Wiesel speaks directly of his experience in the speech stating, Over there, behind the black gates of Auschwitz, the most tragic of prisoners were the Muselmanner. They no longer felt pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead and did not know it (White House Millennium Lecture series - #7). In this quotation and in others, Wiesel refers to his personal experience as a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp. This helps to establish his credibility by relaying to the audience that he experienced the product of widespread indifference first hand. The indifference did not come at the hands of the Nazis (but by those German citizens who saw what was happening and did nothing, and by the world at large including the United States). However the establishment of Wiesels ethos goes far beyond the content of his speech. Also, the kairos, or timing of the speech is all but perfect. Wiesels speech is delivered on the coattails of the ethnic genocide that was perpetrated in the former Yugoslavia. At the time of the speechs delivery, the matter of genocide is fresh in peoples minds, and they are asking themselves How did this happen? and How can we prevent this from happening again? Both of these questions are addressed in the speech (I will go into details on how Wiesel answers these questions in my analysis of his logical appeal). The speaker makes multiple references to the most recent genocide. In other words, Wiesel knew to strike while the iron was hot. After Wiesels ethos was established, he could move on to the body of his argument and to get to the purpose of his speech to develop his logical appeal or logos. Logical Appeal Wiesel organizes his speech in a very deliberate and effective way. In his essay on the speech, Eric Bressman writes, Essentially, his question raises two separate but equally important issues: What motivates indifference, and what are its consequences?(Fighting

Indifference: Looking at World Response to the Holocaust with Elie Wiesel). This does not go far enough. The two questions match those found in Wiesels appeal, but Bressman neglects to mention an important third part, in which Wiesel expresses hope to a brighter future, in which people take action when tempted with indifference. To begin his logical appeal, Wiesel defines what indifference is. He first gives the etymological definition of indifference, but then goes on and gives a different definition of indifference what it means to him and how it relates to the issue at hand. This step in his logical argument proposes what indifference means; as Wiesel puts it is, A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness This definition serves as a base for the rest of his appeal. After proposing the definition, he them moves on to assert that indifference can be tempting more than that, seductive, but warns of the consequences if one goes this path In the next portion of his appeal, Wiesel says, 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. By this, Wiesel means that it is far easier to take the path of indifference and inaction to continue our everyday routine, without allowing such interruptions as the plight of others to interfere. Wiesel then reminds the audience of the consequences of peoples past indifference. He does this by speaking about some of his personal experiences in the Nazi extermination camp Auschwitz. At this point the audience, mostly made up of Americans, may see the issue of the Holocaust as the result of European indifference, an issue far removed from the United States. Wiesel brings the issue home, so to speak, by first asserting the argument that many Americans hold and use to relieve them of guilt. That is, if the United States government knew of the Holocaust, they surely would have acted. He then attacks this argument by saying that in fact the Government of the United States of America was aware of the atrocities being

committed across the Atlantic. Wiesel says, And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew. He then continues to assert that even Franklin Roosevelt knew. Wiesel does not demean the former president though; he refers to FDR as a good man, who fell victim to indifference. Still, some in the audience may say that there was nothing the government could do, as they were thousands of miles away. Wiesel strikes down this argument by telling the story of the ship, the St. Louis, a ship full of Jewish refugees that were seeking refuge in the United States. The U.S. Government had the opportunity to save a thousand people, yet they still turned them away. The government was indifferent to the plight of the refugees. Wiesel speaks to the seductiveness of indifference, due to the tendency for people to desperately cling to their routines; then he shows the consequences of indifference by using an example that a largely American audience can identify with and cannot refute. In her essay on the topic of indifference, Kathleen Barry agrees with this interpretation of Wiesels logical appeal. She writes, This rhetorical situation matures and persists because Wiesel relates the past to a current situation, (Indifference Has No Justification in the 21st Century: A Critical Analysis of Elie Wiesels "The Perils of Indifference). But his logical appeal does not end there; he completes it by offering a message of hope. Wiesel begins his message of hope by saying, 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.

In this statement, Wiesel is speaking to the recent incident of ethnic genocide in the former Yugoslavia. It was perpetrated primary by Slobodan Miloevi, who is the man referenced in the quote. The joint decision that Wiesel mentions is the decision by the United States and NATO to aid the Kosovo Liberation Army with air support. This example shows signs of improvement and reasons for the audience to look towards the future with hope. The intervention in Kosovo works in stark contrast with the indifferent attitude that was dominant during the Holocaust. This contrast shows that Americans can counteract indifference through action and that this action will have positive consequences. This final hopeful section of his logos will, hopefully, cause action in the future. This brings up the third appeal that Wiesel uses to make his speech more effective, and that is pathos, or emotions. Pathetic Appeal In much of his speech, Wiesel uses emotional subjects and language. These are most evident in the beginning and in the end of his speech. He begins the speech by telling a story of a young boy who was just liberated from Buchenwald and had no joy in his heart. At the end of his speech, Wiesel brings this full circle by revealing that the little boy was, in fact, himself. This anecdote makes effective use of pathos by making the audience picture a victim of indifference, which is made even more effective because that victim is standing before them. In another section of the speech, the speaker asks the audience how they want to be remembered. He says, 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? In this statement, Wiesel is asking the audience about their legacy; by doing this, he is evoking deep-seeded emotions in the audience. He is telling them that they have a choice to make, and

the option they choose will become part of their legacy as a generation. No one wants to be remembered as the generation that failed to act, the generation that was indifferent. Arguably, the most emotional portion of the speech is Wiesels final words, his final call to action. Where he says, What about the children? ... 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 have been saved. In this statement, Wiesel speaks of a very emotional topic, the death of children, and uses it to remind the audience of the innocent victims of indifference. This appeal is extremely effective as it gains the attention of the audience, and will ultimately make them more likely to act in the future. Conclusion In his speech on The Perils of Indifference, delivered at the White House, Elie Wiesel addressed an issue that holds relevant to this day. That is, what the consequences are if people choose to be indifferent to the plight of others around the world. In his speech, Wiesel made effective use of rhetorical appeals including ethos, logos, and pathos. Equally important, he also employed kairos. He did this by delivering his speech at a time when the choice between indifference and action could mean the loss or salvation of millions of people. Wiesels speech on indifference provides a powerful lesson that is vital to the well-being of the human race as we forge on into the future. This lesson that Wiesel puts forth can be summarized in this statement, given at a different time by Wiesel, The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of beauty is not ugliness it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, but indifference between life and death.

Works Cited Barry, Kathleen. "Indifference Has No Justification in the 21st Century: A Critical Analysis of Elie Wiesels "The Perils of Indifference"" Wordpress.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. Bressman, Eric. "Fighting Indifference: Looking at World Response to the Holocaust with Elie Wiesel." The Morningside Review. Columbia University, n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. Glynn, Alexandra. "Elie Wiesel's 'Perils of Indifference' and the Ownership of Words, Ideographs, and Archetypal Metaphors." Social Science Research Network.com. North Dakota State University, 11 Dec. 2010. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. White House Millennium Lecture Series - #7. Perf. Hillary Clinton and Elie Wiesel. YouTube. The Clinton Library, 25 Apr. 2012. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.