Speech In Elie Wiesel's The Perils Of Indifference

714 Words3 Pages
When I read Elie Wiesel’s speech on “The Perils of Indifference”, I feel that it has some relation to Susan B. Anthony’s speech about “On Women’s Right to Vote”. They do however, have different subject matter and are depicted in a different time, but both speak of “change”. These two speeches, written in different eras and having different listeners have one mutual goal. The commonality of their message in each of the speeches may not be seen at first, but let’s take a closer look. In Elie Wiesel’s, The Perils of Indifference he tells us what he recalls and what he seen as a Jewish boy growing up. He expresses how he was thankful for American soldiers’ rage and care that helped in his freedom, and how he’s so thankful to the President…show more content…
Anthony, she speaks on the right to be able to vote in a presidential election. Her speech is about her right as a citizen to vote. In 1872 women did not have the right to vote, yet, she illegally voted in the presidential election. Ms. Anthony appealed the introduction to the U.S. Constitution, where she argues the start of it, “We, the people”, and not just male citizens. She verbalizes that, “It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men”. (Anthony, 1872). Ms. Anthony mentions in her message that women and men are citizens, and how can women not be able to vote based on sex qualification? Her speech leaves very little room for argument. She goes on to say that it doesn’t state that only males can vote or in general. She’s goes on to say that “woman are citizens also, they are people and that no state has a right to make any law or to enforce any old law that shall abridge their privileges”. (Anthony, 1872). She very vocal about wanting change in her speech. Change in the in the way things are thought of that will fix was is unreasonable at that
Open Document