Elie Wiesel Interview

1.If you were stripped of your freedom and individuality to be held in a camp waiting to die would you feel indifferent. Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and Boston University Professor, presented a speech as part of the Millennium Lecture Series at the White House on April 12, 1999 2.(Wiesel 221). President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton hosted the formal event. Numerous government officials from a wide order of public, private and foreign office attended the event 2.(Wiesel 221). Although Elie Wiesel designed his speech to persuade, it actually felt somewhat outside from its original intended purpose, as being more different.

In this speech, Elie Wiesel discusses indifference and how staying neutral can have serious consequences. Wisel uses his experience in the Holocaust to support his argument, going on to say how he felt forgotten and how the only hope he had was that nobody else knew what was happening so they couldn't help. (p.14) He uses alliteration and repetition to make his point clear, showing his surprise and disappointment when he learns that the U.S. government did know what was happening in the concentration camps. Wiesel uses his ethos to appeal to the White House and the people around the country, using his time in the concentration camps as a way to have some leverage in the issue.

Conflict: Many Jews died from the terrible tragedies of the Holocaust. They were sent to these concentration camps to wither be killed upon arrival, or work to death.

I believe that Rebecca Skloot included this quote from Elie Wiesel as it represents how important each person really is. This quote says that every person is different and inside of them is something special, their own personal hopes and fears. This quote comes from a man who spent time in a concentration camp as a number, and being labeled doesn't make you feel very special, such is the case with the HeLa cells. The cells, which came from a real person, were labeled in such a way that whose they were didn't matter, the same as the number given to the Jewish people in the Holocaust. The quote also goes on to mention how each person wants to triumph, to succeed in whatever their goal may be. For Elie this may have been to survive and help

In “Elie Wiesel's Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize”, Elie uses rhetoric to convey his message through the uses of pathos and ethos, as well as vividly expressing his personal views towards silence and the remaining of such during a time of crisis where it can be helped. An example of pathos would be when the author describes the young boy, asking “What have you done with my future?, What have you done with your life?” This conveys the feelings of loss and hopelessness, describing the effect of silence on the younger population. This is to get the audience to feel, even slightly, like he does; for them to share the opinion, even if only for a short while. An example of ethos would be: “...no one is capable of gratitude as one who

Writer Elie Wiesel in is Critical speech “The Perils of Indifference,” sheds lights on to world we live in today has evolved into a society of indifference That stripes us form are sense of human characteristics to help others in need of assistance. He supports his claim by illustrating the affect the U.S indifferences had towards the jews led to the death of countless amount of jews perishing during the holocaust seen in paragraph 2 and 18. In addition; In paragraph 8 of “The Perils of Indifference,” it states that people who believe in indifferences become “inhuman” showing no form of sympathy towards others. Finally, In paragraph 11, the author draws the connection towards the countless amounts of death during the meinel with all

Have you ever thought of the times when no one wants to help others? Like during the Holocaust or Slavery? And have you ever wondered why people don't want to help you, even if they're your closest friends, during tough situations? According to Elie Wiesel's speech, you should think about that while you are reading this. Elie Wiesel’s speech was convincing in his speech about people not sticking up for themselves and others by using an anecdote about his past life and now and discussion of people having to go through things because of others and how others are not helping peers/other people.

“Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end.” (American Rhetoric). This is a sentiment that Elie Wiesel pushes throughout his speech, The Perils of Indifference. Elie Wiesel was a Romanian born, Jewish writer, and was a survivor of the holocaust (Berger). In his speech, The Perils of Indifference, he discusses how indifference has hurt him, and everyone throughout the world. In this speech Wiesel uses appeals to pathos to make his argument effective. Examples are scattered across the speech to make it more appealing, and provide real world context for what he is arguing about. The last of the rhetorical choices the speaker makes is definition, in this speech Wiesel defines indifference, and uses this definition to prove why indifference hurts people. In Elie Wiesel’s speech, The Perils of Indifference, he argues that indifference hurts people, and his argument is effective by using various rhetorical choices.

Elie Wiesel, a Noble Peace Prize winner and Boston University Professor, presented a speech as part of the Millennium Lecture Series at the White House on April 12, 1999. President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton hosted the formal lecture series. Numerous dignitaries from a wide array of public, private and foreign office attended the event. Although Elie Wiesel designed his speech to persuade, it actually fell somewhat outside the deliberative genre category, as being more non-typical within this genre category.

I honestly agree to what Elie Wiesel has to say, “when human lives are endangered when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Where ever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion or political views, that pace must at the moment become the center of the universe.”

The book Night opens in the town of Signet where Elie Wiesel, the author ,

The 20th century was a time of brutal wars and eradication of joy. On April 12, 1999, Elie Wiesel stepped up to the podium, reflecting the violent times as they were months before entering a new century. Wiesel knew very well that the uncountable tragedies had to change, and each individual must exercise his or her own contributions in the face of justice and humanity. His devastating experiences and tragic realizations produced a voice that carried around the world, revealing the fundamental structure of humanity.

The Holocaust is widely known as one of the most horrendous and disturbing events in history that the world has seen; over six million lives were lost, in fact the total number of deceased during the Holocaust has never been determined. The footage of concentration camps and gas chambers left the world in utter shock, but photos and retellings of the events cannot compare to being a victim of the Holocaust and living through the horror that the rest of the world regarded in the safety of their homes. Elie Wiesel recognized the indifference that the

In Elie Wiesel’s Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, Weisel asserts the grief and despair to whom families died in the Holocaust. Wiesel first empathizes on the past events through a strong Paths, he then describes the pain of the Holocaust by use of Ethos and to conclude he makes it crystal clear of the fear from the camps by the use of Anaphora. Wiesel’s purpose was to show his honor and sympathy towards getting this award. He seems to have a mixed race and age audience in mind because this terrible event put a cloak of darkness around the Jews and Wiesel is taking it off with the use of his diction and tone.

Elie Wiesel uses rhetoric to convey his message in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. In the speech, he uses rhetoric by telling from his own perspective or from his own point of view. In paragraph three, the authors explains his opinion from his point of view that he doesn’t think he has the right to accept the Nobel Peace Prize: “It frightens me because I wonder: do I have the right to represent the multitudes who have perished? Do I have the right to accept this great honor on their behalf? I do not. That would be presumptuous. No one may speak for the dead, no one may interpret their mutilated dreams and visions.” He questions himself and he thinks that he doesn’t deserve the honor to be given the Nobel Peace Prize. In paragraph eleven, the author explains that there’s always something that can be done: “There is much to be done, there is much that can be done. One person...of integrity can make a