Harper

Charles Harper

Professor Maple

English 101-08

26 September 2018

Rhetorical Analysis

Moving, touching, powerful, and most of all revealing. To ensure a bright future for all of

human kind, it is imperative that we as the human race take special to not just remember, but to

stand up and face the bad, uncomfortable, and horrendous. In the Regan speech, the

americanAmerican people are brought to realize that our freedoms do not extend as far as we are

led to believe. Reagan was ultimately successful in the deliverance of his ideas and overall

message with the aid of his reputation and overall status. In “The Perils of indifference” speech

composed by Elie WeiselWiesel, WeiselsWiesel’s intent is to discuss the consequences of

indifference in the face of human suffering and to speak out on his plans for the future of not

only his people, the jews, but for the entire world, for listeners who strive to live in a better

society where we do not repeat the mistakes of the ones who came before us. Without a doubt,

this was a successful delivery of the message. His credibility is unparalleled as he has seen the

absolute worst the human race is capable of and is a true survivor of the horrendous acts of

which he speaks.

I am writing this today to further my claim through the means of credibility, logic, and Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

the emotional ties of the public as to why I believe that Ellie Wiesel and his speech had a more

profound impact on society that Regan.

 Harper

Ethos is the Greek word for “character.” The word “ethic” is derived from ethos.”

(PathosEthosLogos.com). Essentially meaning we must beg the questions, Who is Elie Weisel

and Ronald Reagan? And What makes their claims credible?

Growing up in Romania around the time Hitler and the Nazi regime came to power

young Elie WeiselsWiesel’s life took a rather unique path that not only shaped who he was as an

individual, but had a massive effect on the message he conveys and the power in which he does

it. Pursuing jewishJewish religious studies, WeiselWiesel flourished throughout his early years

by practicing the traditional spiritual beliefs of his mother and grandfather and most importantly,

taking part in his father's liberal expression judaismJudaism.

In the year 1940, at the ripe age of twelve, his hometown was annexed and he and his

family were among the jewsJews that were forced to live in ghettos (Biography.com). Just four

years later he and his family were sent to Auschwitz and he later was renounced to a sub camp

named Buna Werke. As history states, the living conditions were nothing short of pure and

absolute filth, the day to day lives of the workers were miserable, strenuous, and horrendous.

Beaten daily, starved and literally worked until their bodies could no longer sustain life; this was

the formative years of Elie WeiselWiesel, this was his life, and this was his Hell.

Born on February 6th, 1911 in Tampico Illinois (biographyonline.net), Ronald Reagan

attended EruekaEureka college where there he became student body president. In the 1930’s he

worked as a radio broadcaster and in 1942 starred in the film “Kings row” which started his

acting career. Reagan then went on to become the president of the screen actors guild.
 Harper

His political career began as a democrat, but after meeting his second wife, Nancy, He

switched parties stating that he did not leave the party, “the party left him”. Later he became the

governor of California and as we know, President of the United States.

As we can see, both of these men have credible and authentic backgrounds to stand on.

As different as they are, the messages portrayed are both positive, powerful, and precise. These

men have not only lived unique and rare lives, but have influenced millions along the way. The

words they speak, the charisma in which they exonerate, and the undying love for the human

race is not only second to none, but it is what makes them special. Different yet the same, both

powerful, strong and courageous, these messages have stood the test of time and will be

remembered for decades to come. However, it is clear to me that Wiesel has much more of a

solid backing. Through his life experiences he has lived his message and to me, has more of a

positive message and influence.

Elie Weisel’sWiesel’s “The perils of indifference” speech is not only from the heart, but

from experience as well. His message is not only one of gratitude and thankfulness but concern

and sternness. As he addresses President at the time, Bill Clinton, he speaks of his gratefulness to

the “commander-in-chief of the army that freed me and thousands of others”(others”

(americanrhetoric.com). He wonders how as a new century approaches, how the last will be

remembered. Explaining how the failures of a few have cast a dark shadow over humanity. How

so many people have been murdered, tortured, executed and assassinated. He goes on to say “

so“so much violence; so much indifference”. He goes on to explain indifference as follows,”

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. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it
 Harper

a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view

indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live

normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing

upheavals?”. WeiselWiesel tells us how it is very easy, almost involuntary to look away and

ignore these injustices as they happen, and to try our best and forget them as they have passed.

He urges us to not only remember them, but embrace them and learn from them, not for his sake,

but for the sake of humanity. To not look back and think of it as simply “bad”, but to take and

learn from the misfortunes of others for the advancement, and most importantly the betterment of

humanity.

Ronald Reagan was a man of dignity and action, but who used humor to hit home and

make himself level with the common man. Reagans “A time for choosing” speech was on behalf

of senator and president hopeful Barry Goldwater. He opens with a sarcastic remark stating “The

sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been

provided with a script.”. He begins with economic statistics as most politicians would, but

continues on to his real message. He explains that the American people are told that they must

choose between and left and a right, but he believes that there is no such thing as left and right.

In his mind, there is only up and down. Up to true freedom and down to enslavement. The

ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap

totalitarianism. He goes on to point out that in the time he was giving the speech, that it was an

ideal “ vote“vote harvesting time” (presedency.uscb.edu) , but says that greater government

activity, which was suggested by the opposing party, would not only ruin this nation but would

infringe on the basic freedoms that we as americansAmericans have the right to. The basic

freedoms that our founding fathers intended us to have. He goes on to site examples from the
 Harper

past and expound on the injustices in which they were carried out. In tune with WeiselWiesel, he

explains that if we do not learn from our past, and we turn a blind eye to the wrongfulness that

overcomes us, then we will surely fall and be enslaved by the very government that was sworn to

protect us.

Logos is defined as “the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed”. In other

words, the logic that is incurred. So, So, the question must be asked, Are the claims made by

these men reasonable and logical? With Reagan pulling from past experiences of government

interference in the United states and WeiselWiesel Pulling from his own life experiences with

people, the claims are both made logical and reasonable, they both contain facts and are filled

with evidence as support. Both are quoted in saying that without evidence, words are just words

and thoughts are just thoughts. Alas, Wiesel has the clear advantage here as well. While Reagans

claims are powerful and well thought-out, he only speaks of political rhetoric sighting his own

opinions of how he feels that the American people will become enslaved by the government

without law and order. Too it is clear as with all politicians that he has an agenda. Wiesel

however speaks of accepted ideas that have shown to go horribly wrong if done incorrectly. Such

as remembering our past as humans as we will forget and are bound to repeat the same mistakes.

Here I sense no agenda, only concern for our world going forward.

Emotions are what makes humans, human. It has been tried, tested and found true. We as

human beings cannot remain ourselves without our own opinions and without the emotions that

we carry. When these men gave their speeches, they presented facts and have both lived a life

that has portrayed the ethical background in which they came from. Their claims and intentions

have been deemed just and moral. They have been made with an idea that is much greater that

their own being, and far beyond their own benefit. With this they strived to evoke an emotional
 Harper

response. Reagans speech evoked a sense of anger which he hoped would be transferred into

action. His vision was for the American people to rise up and take charge against the government

that he felt wished to enslave them. However, WeiselWiesel sparked a feeling of immense dread,

sadness, and in some cases guilt. But in unison with Reagan his intention was to trigger a sense

of action. Not just for the American people, but for the entire world. Which in this case I see

Wiesel as the clear victor. Both evoked emotion, but through Elie Wiesel’s horrific past, he was

able to connect with his audience on a much more powerful level. Evoking anger to win to me is

much less significant than evoking sadness and guilt in order to change the world.

In the end, the message portrayed by these men are worth being not only heard, but

listened to and closely followed. They have made valuable points and stretched their hands in

making this world we live in a better place for us and generations to come. These men are to be

revered in the history of our world and we should take heed to never forget them or their

message. However, WeiselWiesel goes beyond the American people, As an American, I not only

appreciate Reagans words, I try to learn and benefit from them. But Elie WeiselWiesel, not only

cares for the people that freed him and thousands of others, but he cares for the world. His heart

reaches out to not only those who have freed him, not only those who have also been affected by

tyranny and evil, but for those who exercised their power to create that very same tyranny and

evil. The same evil that has condemned his people and his family to a slow agonizing death. That

is not only an exemplary act of love and forgiveness, but the very act in which he wishes the

world to live by. This is the true meaning of the term “practice what you preach”. Elie Weisel

has not only seen the worst the world has to offer, he has seen the beauty in its people. a

willingness and urgency to change, and that is the most powerful message that a single human
 Harper

can send. He has lived his speech, he has seen hell and he has seen the light. It is solely up to us

now to carry the torch and to bring light to a dark world.