Does Elie Wiesel show any bias in his "The Perils of Indifference" speech?
I believe that Elie Wiesel always shows bias and does in this speech The Perils of Indifference as well. His bias is that the world and its people should not be indifferent to the suffering of the world, but should be stopping the injustices perpetrated on the poor. Just as during the Holocaust, indifference allowed the Nazis to gather such control and cause the death of so many people, it was those who were not indifferent who saved those in peril, one of whom was Elie himself. Whether his bias is considered good or bad, it is still a bias. Elie himself said, "Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil." I also believe as Elie does and am afraid when I see the apathy of many to the election this fall.
Everyday of our lives we are exposed to bias. Whether it is in the school yard conversations or the local newspaper letters to the editor, business marketing, we are persuaded by person’s feelings and emotions put into texts and words spoken.
He wanted to convey that indifference is worse than hate or anger. Being indifferent to another's suffering is like saying, 'you're suffering is not even worth my consideration.' Wiesel speaks from his experience of the Holocaust, but this could be applied to any situation in history in which the world was indifferent; in which the world willfully refused to acknowledge suffering of others for any number of unjustifiable reasons.
Wiesel provides in his speech both sides of the coin, which is one way of ensuring he is un-biased in what he writes. He speaks with a language that touches hearts and draws emotions of the listeners to say. Yes. That is me, how indifferent I have been in my life. His language is clear, his viewpoint is powerful. His words are so effective, this speech has made history. Indifference is not an appropriate response to evil. He really is leaving the listeners with a sense of ‘let us move on and never let this happen again’ ‘The Perils of indifference”…the name says it all.