A Rhetorical Analysis Of Chavez's Article

Yaroslav Legkyi, Mrs. Andersen/Ms. Parchim E202 22 February 2024 Rhetorical Analysis of Chavez’s article Chavez writes people should use peaceful ways to make things fair rather than things like wars. Using ideas from people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, Chavez writes that being peaceful is better than being violent as it gets more support and keeps people feeling better about the things that people do. Chavez also told people, like farm workers, to join in peaceful protests and activities. Overall, Chavez wants to encourage people to use peaceful ways to change things for the better and to treat everyone with equal respect rather than having self-centered views and solving them with violence and war. Chavez uses multiple …show more content…

In the first paragraph, Chavez talks about how Dr. King used non-violent methods to solve problems, “Dr. King’s entire life was an example of the power that nonviolence brings to bear in the real world. [.] This observance of Dr. King’s death gives people the best possible opportunity to recall the principles with which our struggle has grown and matured.” (Chavez 1). Chavez’s allusion talks about how Dr. King explained that using peace instead of violence can solve big problems. Dr. King is famous for using peaceful methods to bring about change during the civil rights movement. By mentioning him, Chavez shows that peaceful ways can work in real life. It's like saying, "If Dr. King could do it, people could too." This allusion helps to explain why nonviolence is a better way to deal with problems compared to violence, Dr. King is a historical figure that is well known for his views on non-violence, this proves that it has worked and gives Chavez historical credibility to his …show more content…

Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect. If, for every violent act committed against us, we respond with nonviolence, we attract people’s support. We can gather the support of millions who have a conscience and would rather see a nonviolent resolution to problems.” (Chavez 1). Chavez compares non-violence to violence to show why non-violence is a safer and more humane way of solving problems within society. Chavez writes that non-violence is good for fair and moral causes, and it helps to keep moving forward positively rather than being negative and regressive as a community. Chavez explains that if people use violence, it can lead to more violence and harm, and it can make everyone feel hopeless. But if people respond to violence with non-violence. Chavez uses this rhetorical device here to help the audience understand that although non-violence and violence both solve problems, non-violence doesn’t create more, which is crucial in his article because his argument completely revolves around these two ideas, so it is important to highlight the differences between