A Rhetorical Analysis Of Nonviolent Resistance, By Cesar Chavez

Cesar Chavez was a civil rights activist who organized the earliest Chicano movements. In an essay by Jorge Mariscal, Chavez’s political ideology is

Firstly, ethos is continuously used in Chavez's article as a rhetorical strategy. An example of ethos found in the article includes "no one has the right to take it[human life] for any reason or for any cause" (9-10). This pertains to the result of death if violent

Chavez makes the point that marches, strikes, and boycotts are not the only weapons of violence. He points out that the boycott as Gandhi taught “is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolence change.” This allowed the masses of people to participate actively in a cause. This appeal of ethos demonstrates that violence does not work, it just causes more riots. People suffer from violence, and it is unsuccessful. Chavez uses ethos to emphasize to the readers that violence gets you nowhere, and nonviolence is more

When Chavez states an argument, he then addresses the reader’s emotions to resolve any uplifting self conflict. He states, “Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect.” Then in the next paragraph he states, “But if we are committed to nonviolence only as a strategy or tactic, then if it fails the only alternative is to turn to violence.” He does this for the people that do not completely agree with his point, to show that he acknowledges both sides, which strengthens his argument. He later uses, “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” He does this to make the reader remember the past of violent protest and how many people sacrificed their lives for a cause, which makes the reader more passionate towards supporting his argument.

César Chavez once said, “Nonviolence is not inaction. It is not discussion. It is not for the timid or weak. Non-violence is hard work. It is the willingness to sacrifice It is the patience to win.”. His words inspired one young man to turn his life around and become a man of character who used his experiences to help others. In his essay “César Chávez Saved My Life” Daniel “Nene” Alejandrez tells his story of the struggle and anger towards many injustices that happen around him and his journey from channeling that anger through crime to using it to start a foundation Barrios Unidos, to help men in prison overcome poverty, and the drug and violence culture surrounding them. In his essay, Alejandrez uses key scenes from his life to convey his main theme of spiritual connection to overcome the many hardships the Latino community faces in this country.

Acknowledging his consideration for both sides of the argument and providing his definition of nonviolence allows Chavez’s listeners to trust him because he has carefully described his own ideas while also considering perspectives contradictory to his own. Violence is described to result in “...many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides…” as well as “...total demoralization of the workers” (ln 19-21). Nonviolence is described as the opposite of violence. Nonviolence will be there to “...[support] you if you have a just and moral cause” (ln 13-14). Providing a clear

Martin Luther King Jr. died fighting peacefully against injustice and for equal rights. Similarly, nonviolent protests must continue to be used today because violence only leads to more violence. For the tenth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, Cesar Chavez illustrated the importances of nonviolence in his article, “He Showed Us the Way”. In the passage, Chavez expresses strong pathos, powerful diction, and complex syntax in order to encourage nonviolence.

Chavez does not wait long to dive into his argument, instead, within the first few paragraphs he makes a very clear and comprehensive claim with the very strategic use of parallel structure when he says, “Nonviolence is more powerful than violence. Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause. Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and that is of crucial importance to win any contest” (Chavez 3). It can be seen here that this use of parallel structure plays a very crucial role in conveying Chavez’s message as it repeats over and over the main idea of the article. In doing so, the main idea becomes really emphasized and in a way drills the focus of the article into the minds of his audience. This provides a very easy and understandable

Multiple times, throughout the text, Chavez uses pathos to appeal emotionally to his audience. Chavez builds a connection and empathy with the readers and persuades them to be people who fight for causes nonviolently. In the sixth paragraph Chaves states that, “men and women who are truly concerned about people are non violent by nature. These people become violent when the deep concern they have for people is frustrated and when they are faced with seemingly insurmountable odds.” Chavez states that everyone who actually cares about people should be nonviolent, that they shouldn’t have to resort to violence because they don’t need it. This quote builds a connection and causes self-reflection for the

To make nonviolence the more logical option, Chavez implements logos and leads readers to believe that violence takes too many sacrifices. After identifying the advantages of nonviolence, he gives the readers two possible conclusions to make about the brutal opposite: “either the violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides, or there will be total demoralization of the workers” (Chavez). Presenting these two unfavorable options uses the logos appeal and persuades the audience to see nonviolence as the more reasonable choice with more promising outcomes. At another point in the article, Chavez tells the audience to simply “examine history” (Chavez). The straightforward statement causes readers to recall violent events of the past and logically recognize them as inferior to the previously mentioned nonviolent protests. This conclusion helps Chavez achieve his purpose by persuading the audience to side with his point of view and support nonviolence. After establishing his argument on sound reasoning, Chavez uses that foundation to employ other rhetorical appeals.

He does so by stating, “WE MUST TEACH OUR BROTHERS WHO DO NOT YET KNOW!” (paragraph 6). To clarify, Chavez’s persistence to teaching others effects the number of supporters for migrant workers to quickly achieve equality. In which, the audience is persuaded into teaching others of the inequality issue and unite more people to help solve the issue of migrant workers’ rights. Definitely, Chavez’s persistence forces the audience to understand the significance and effect that the audience has to end inequality and the atrocious treatment of migrant

Chavez states, “Our conviction is that human life is a very special possession given by God to man and that no one has the right to take it for any reason or for any cause, however just it may be.” This quick allusion to God can appeal to an audience with a religious background; it gives them a more spiritual connection with what Chavez speaks about. In addition, Chavez says, “The boycott, as Ghandi taught, is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change, allowing masses of people participate actively in a cause.” An allusion to the Mahatma Ghandi, a man who led India to independence from the British by practicing nonviolent civil disobedience, is used here. This really strengthens Chavez’s argument, as Ghandi was successful with what he fought for, which can give more confidence to the audience that nonviolent resistance can

In an effort to share the pain people have when they are victims of violence, Chavez utilizes pathos. When it comes to violence Chavez doesn't stand down when they ask who the victims are. “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers.” By striking pity and making the reader reflect, Chavez grabs their attention and pulls them in a and lets them relate if they know or have been victims of violence. Cesar Chavez blames the armed forces for using weapons and machines for use of violence and calls them out for their ways, mocking them as they are doing the opposite, and hurting rather than helping. ”To call men to arms with many promises, to ask them to give up their lives for a cause and then not produce for them afterwards, is the most vicious type of oppression.” Chavez mocking the armed forces allows him to show that by that they are doing is actually the most vicious type of oppression and isn't worth it and needed. Making

Chavez utilizes pathos. When it comes to violence, Chavez doesn't stand down when they ask

Cesar Chavez uses ethos by using similar characteristics as Dr. King to gain the attention of his intended audience. For instance, “Dr. Kings entire life was an example of power that non violence brings to bear in the real world” which shows Chavez talking about King’s achievements (1-2). Chavez gains