Sophia Mabry

Prof. Dair Arnold

English 1101

03/15/19

On The Perils of Indifference

On April 12, 1999, Elie Wiesel, an author and Holocaust survivor, delivered his

speech, The Perils of Indifference, in Washington D.C. He addressed then-president

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and several members of the U.S. Congress in what

appeared to be a personal and genuine speech meant to warn against losing one’s

empathy for their fellow man during troubling times. In this speech, he uses his own

personal experiences, as well as examples from historical events, to construct his

warning against becoming indifferent. Throughout The Perils of Indifference, Wiesel

makes great use of ethos, logos, and pathos to present a convincing and inspiring

argument to his audience.

When it comes to ethos, Elie Wiesel naturally has credibility in the subject which

he speaks on. Being a Holocaust survivor, he knows from personal experience what

indifference can do. He could have easily focused solely on how indifference from world

leaders during Hitler’s anti-Semitic reign helped make the Holocaust the immense

tragedy that it was. He could have used only his own experiences. Weisel takes his

appeals to ethos several steps further, though, showing knowledge of many other

relevant events, referencing several assassinations, Sarajevo and Kosovo, Hiroshima,

the gulag, and many more (4). He also gains credibility by establishing a definition of his
subject for the audience, saying, “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.”

On the other side of ethos, Wiesel makes his ethics clear by opening with a warm

and grateful attitude. He expresses his gratitude to the American soldiers that freed him

as a boy, saying, “And even if he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful to

them for that rage [against the Nazis’ crimes], and also for their compassion.”(2) He also

thanks the American people as a whole, thanks Hillary Clinton for all of her work as first

lady, then thanks the entire audience for their presence. Though his purpose is to give a

stern warning about the horrible consequences of widespread indifference, he does not

immediately criticize anyone for past indifference. This initial positive reinforcement

exhibits level-headedness and promotes the idea that he is there to inspire, not

reprimand. He indirectly assures the audience that the following speech will not be a

lecture or scolding by beginning this way, making them more receptive to his words.

Wiesel first appeals to logos by breaking down the concept of indifference- why

so many turn to it, what separates it from other responses to troubling situations, and

what makes it the worst option. He notes how easy it can be to slip into indifference, “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.” (6) He paints indifference as the easy way, and, by using the

word “seductive”, he insinuates that indifference is a sinful temptation.

 Wiesel then moves to differentiate indifference from other perceived-to-be

negative emotions. He explains, “Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger

and hatred. Anger can at times be creative… But indifference is never creative. Even

hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it.” (9)

Wiesel further proves that indifference is more dangerous by saying, “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.”(10) These simple, logical, unembellished explanations provide a strong

foundation for Wiesel’s argument and make it difficult to undermine.

Perhaps the most prominent strategy that Wiesel makes use of, though, is

pathos. Since his speech on indifference addresses many horrendous events in human

history, it is teeming with emotion. With each event that Wiesel alludes to, memories of

the devastating headlines and accounts spark in audience members’ minds, tugging at

the heart strings and awakening their humanity. It is here that his personal accounts of

the Holocaust most come into play.

Elie Wiesel speaks on the pain that being treated with indifference causes. He

says, “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.”(8) to emphasize how awful it was

to be simply forgotten. He gives a heart-wrenching anecdote about how the people in

the concentration camps actually hoped that nobody knew about them, saying “And our

only miserable consolation was that we believed that Auschwitz and Treblinka were

closely guarded secrets… 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.”(14)

You can hear the pain and frustration in his voice in that last line. This is one of

the moments that makes this speech more effective when listened to than when read.

These deeply touching and raw emotional appeals will surely leave a lasting impact on

the audience. The next time they think of turning to indifference, they may hear Wiesel’s

pained voice or picture the poor victims of those injustices ignored by the world.

Elie Wiesel, along with 6 million other humans, went through hell on Earth,

largely because of indifference. He spoke up with his insight in the hopes of preventing

future suffering. By showing his credibility, making logical arguments, and bringing out

others’ emotions, he ensured that every person listening would be swayed to be wary of

becoming indifferent to others.