Table of ContentsIntroduction“The Perils of Indifference”: Rhetorical AnalysisEthosLogosPathosRhetorical QuestionsRepetitionConclusionIntroductionAt the time of the Holocaust, sematic groups were considered a priority danger for Germany as well as for their collaborators, epitomized by the organized and state-sponsored persecution of six million European Jews by the Nazis. Fifty years later, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel has worked tirelessly to raise awareness around the world of inflicted violence that transfigures into indifference. From a serene childhood devoted to Torah study to a brutal adolescence amid the rise and horrors of concentration camps, the sum of his experiences shaped the way we protect humanity. On April 2, 1999, Wiesel's Millennium Address on "The Perils of Indifference" described the injustices individuals face and urged audiences to engage in activism and never ignore the plight of others. Its power lies in the combination of historical truths, a social and political call to action, and, most importantly, the speaker's moving personal story. Wiesel's speech is a harsh indictment of those who choose to be indifferent to the suffering of others, invoking compassion using various rhetorical devices including ethos, logos, pathos and loaded language, rhetorical questions, parallelism and repetition. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay “The Perils of Indifference”: Rhetorical AnalysisEthosThe speech highlights an intense personal aspect, carrying the same ethos to address its Jewish values ​​as well as moral and ethical principles that society seems not to follow. By providing the public with a brief account of how his youth was surrounded by mental scars, this heartbreaking story seems credible to a wide range of government members. His article deserves extensive direct experience for the aforementioned reason, written by one of the foremost experts on the Holocaust and moral issues. His conclusion to the speech, “And so, once again, I think of the Jewish boy from the Carpathians,” demonstrates not only the problem at hand, but also his own credibility as a relevant speaker (Wiesel, 1999). The use of “we” and “we” throughout the speech reinforced commonalities with the audience and thus encouraged a sense of cohesion or community by blurring the divide between author and audience. Because this speech is inspired by Wiesel's personal experience, it proves to the audience that humanity must awaken to the world; that we must not succumb to the danger of excluding ourselves from the outside world. Just as important as the moment in which Wiesel (1999) delivers his message is his direct acknowledgment of the people to whom he addresses – "Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, Excellencies, friends." This, in turn, not only sets the stage for their role in helping Wiesel escape, but also establishes a means of establishing relationships.LogosUsing an effective structure with logos, Wiesel brings together his personal memories and facts about the atrocities of the 20th century to allow the public to sympathize with the victims of a century of horror. His testimony is constructed with a multitude of references to senseless historical events in which the human cost of grief and pain cannot be calculated from self-inflicted, interpersonal or collective violence –– civil wars, world wars,assassinations, border conflicts, genocide, etc. Sharing these tragic events and recalling the epicenter of unimaginable degradation in numbers translates its theme of indifference into perpetual emotions of guilt and shame. It is with guarded sorrow that Wiesel recalls the wretched American decision to turn away refugees from St. Louis, which included a shipload of 1,000 Jews who were sent back to the burning shores of Europe. It is evident that these arguments are linked together by a strong logical chain as he summarizes humanity's philosophical ideas and linguistic features to serve as incursions into his ideas. From providing an in-depth definition of indifference to highlighting the actions of the United States of America and our choice not to intervene, he addresses the effects of these situations to persuade audiences to act. To create embarrassment among the audience, the speaker examines the injustices faced by a wide range of ethnicities and backgrounds, demonstrating the dangers of indifference. Although the presence of such statements and logical questions constitutes an appeal to human conscience, Wiesel deliberately interweaves positive actions in which humanity played a role. Clearly, his goal was to highlight the altruistic acts of the world with the aim of implying that society has been and can be intuitively altruistic. The speech encompasses various uses of logos, in a way that appeals to an audience of government officials who rely heavily on a set of facts. PathosWiesel's naturally emotive subject constructs a powerful speech filled with pathos as it opens with a sketch of a young boy, unidentified but representing Wiesel himself, recently freed from the concentration camp. Essentially, the speaker uses the first lines of his speech in an attempt to contextualize his experiences within all of the tragedy that characterized the 1900s and to emphasize the importance of remembering it all. The use of anecdotes to construct the grim imagery of prisoners, starving children and refugees feeling lost constitutes a subject that “cuts to the heart”. Wiesel (1999) states: “Their hidden, or even visible, pain is of no interest. Indifference makes others less human,” desensitizing those who lack empathy toward humanity. He juxtaposes positive and negative emotions to create a stark contrast between the lack of joy and liberation, the rage of the soldiers and the gratitude he felt deeply. Having lost his family and dedicated his life to exposing the horrors of the Holocaust, he manages to generate sympathy in a way that allows the audience to process and reflect on these steps: standing up, fighting back, and choosing not to stay indifferent.Rhetorical QuestionsThought Violence elicits a vivid emotional response, allowing the speaker to gradually elaborate sensitive notions such as hunger, despair, and pain. His intention to pass the torch stems from his effective appeal to emotions, conveying the positive side of the storm cloud: “indifference kills” can be countered by saving lives through action and compassion. Using several key techniques to create a persuasive speech, Wiesel asks a series of pointed rhetorical questions with the intention that the audience plans to answer during their pause. In “The Perils of Indifference,” he asks a total of 26 questions, not to receive a response from his audience, but to capture their attention and allow them to think about the effects of such a global problem. Wiesel incorporates a very compelling way of elaborating his ideas by connecting the current condition of the world with the holocaust and questioning the audience to.