Article Analysis of Hugo Chave's Death

The article “Cesar Chavez Saved My Life,” written by Daniel “Nane” Alejandrez reflects on Mr. Alejandraz’s past, covering some very unfortunate events, but with a purpose of pulling emotion from the reader. While reading some parts of the article, I had to reread it over a few times to comprehend the point that the author was trying to make. The most important thing about knowing his past is that it is significantly different, and much more positive in the future because of one person, Cesar Chavez.

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.

On the tenth anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination, Chavez utilizes King’s association with civil rights in order to give foundation to his own words. Chavez knows the anniversary is “...the best possible opportunity to recall the principles with which [their] struggle has grown and matured…” (ln 5-7) because King has values regarding civil rights that are synonymous to his own. Both Chavez and King possess the value that the human life is special and no one has the right to take it away. By referring to a well-known, wildly respected, and successful leader with a similar cause, Chavez has ensured that the audience will be receptive to his message that the use of nonviolence is a better solution to a problem than violence. A later reference to Gandhi further strengthens this effect. Chavez praises the effectiveness of a boycott, an act in which people forbid relations with a group in order to achieve change, made popular by Gandhi. The allusion to commonly revered supporters of the principles Chavez has built himself upon, gives him the credibility to gain the attention of the audience.

Document C shows that Chavez’s willingness to sacrifice was effective because the image shows Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a future presidential candidate, with Chavez. The image’s description states that Kennedy was supporting Chavez. Along with that, Chavez said, “I am convinced that the truest act of courage, the strongest act of manliness, is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice.” This image and excerpt show that Chavez was willing to make sacrifices for the movement that he was leading, and that these sacrifices helped bring more awareness to the issue about the rights of farm workers. The willingness to sacrifice is an important quality to have because in the long run, the sacrifice of a leader usually benefits the movement that the leader is a part of. People are astonished and inspired by a person’s willingness to sacrifice, and the sacrifice of leaders has a profound affect on their followers, and, eventually, on social systems. Chavez chose hunger strikes as a form of protest because it was nonviolent, it showed courage, and it was a sacrifice that helped make the movement successful because the sacrifice made a statement about the movement for the rights of the farm workers. The photograph of Chavez and Kennedy was important to the movement because it showed others that Chavez had support from a well-known politician, bringing more awareness to the rights of the farm workers. This caused more people to support this movement, putting more pressure on the growers to make the farm conditions better and to treat the farm workers better. The willingness to sacrifice made Chavez an effective leader because he made sacrifices that brought more attention and support to the movement, finally helping win union rights and civil rights for the farm

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

By using powerful, evocative phrases in his writing, Chavez adds polish to the article. For instance, he says that he is “not blind to the feelings of frustration, impatience and anger” (Chavez 47-48). This potent metaphor adds liveliness to his writing, eliciting the same feeling as a rousing speech. Additionally, Chavez concocts a catchy saying that rings true for many people: “The rich may have money, but the poor have time.” (92-93). His use of metaphors and idioms transforms his article from simply functional to a powerful addition to the argument against nonviolence.

By persuading the audience to sympathize with his point of view, Chavez develops emotional appeals through pathos. In the beginning of the article, Chavez focuses primarily on his side of the argument, but he does not forget to acknowledge the views of the opposing side. He recognizes the conflicting side’s emotions when he says, “We advocate militant nonviolence as our means of achieving justice for our people, but we are not blind to the feelings of frustration, impatience and anger…” (Chavez). By appealing to the audience’s emotions, Chavez creates an understanding relationship with the reader, making them more accepting of his

This creates a strong emotion of hopefulness within the reader since Chavez claims that he’s on their side which, helps convince the audience to listen to his argument about the importance of nonviolence more thoroughly. Basically, Chavez here is saying that we shouldn’t resort to violence no matter what hardships we face since it’s more important than relying on our negative emotions to attack others physically.

As I said before, many critics agreed that Hugo Chavez has been able to diminished Venezuelan democracy to convert it to a competitive authoritarian regime. Chavez has controlled the country and stills does, in a way in that using populism and his policy of clientism he gets the masses and specially the poor to support him and agreed with him in many of his reforms and actions. Allying himself with leftist countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and especially Cuba, Chavez has implemented what he calls a “Bolivarian Revolution”, revolution that allows him to have a complete control of the country. Furthermore, Chavez has been using the oil revenues not only as a method of getting international support for his ideas and type of regime but also, for his own personal enrichment

Though Venezuela and The United States are located in the western hemisphere, they are both very different culturally, politically, and socially. The United States is one of the world’s richest nation whereas according to Francisco Toro of Vox.com, Venezuela has, “the world’s highest inflation rate” (Toro). Though the United States has its own problems, they’re very minor compared to Venezuela as according to the same article by Francisco Toro, “Venezuela has become the world’s most visibly failing state” (Toro). Venezuela and The US differ when it comes to migration, culture, politics, economy, urbanization, and agriculture. Venezuela and The US differ greatly when it comes to population and migration.

Chavez used his life experiences in order to better the lives of many migrant workers in America. Key points in Chavez’s life that had

In another case, “however important the struggle is and however much misery, poverty and exploitation exists, we know that it cannot be more important than a human life” which also shows Chavez’ familiarity to the emotions of his audience frequently experience (37-39). He brings up a moral factor as people are starting to consider harmful tactics. He is well aware of how hatred can lead to harmful effects, and he reminds his audience that it would be immoral to potentially take the life of a human being just because they are frustrated with the injustice system. Chavez is only trying to ease his audience because he is familiar that there is a widespread feeling of impatience and anger.

Cesar Chavez was an extremely influential individual in the Latino civil rights movement. Born in March 1927, he preached unionism and aggressive non violence, and cofounded the National Farm Workers Association. Being a major player in the civil rights movement, he recognized the obvious influence of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and on the tenth anniversary of his assassination Chavez published an article in Maryknoll Magazine. While writing about nonviolence, Chavez appealed to logos and pathos to have the message of the article connect with the reader’s emotions and reasoning.

Manley focused on during his political tenure in Jamaica and how effective they were for community development. In her writing Gloudon focuses on an educated Jamaican community including politicians and university students especially those majoring in Political Science. Gloudon emphases on the social programs used by Manley for community development through Volunteerism, with the JAMAL program were literate person volunteered to help the illiterate, facilitated to decrease illiteracy from 50 percent to 24.7 percent in Jamaica. Similarly, to Gloudon, Blake being passionate towards his subject matter Hugo Chavez in The Impact of Hugo Chavez’s political legacy on Venezuela’s society and economy, with the recent death of Hugo Chavez (2013) Blake attempts to honor the Political legacy of the former Venezuelan president by comparing and contrasting his political ideology “Chavismo”. The writer tries to create a balance of how positive and negative “Chavismo” was. Blake stated “Chavismo” created fundamental social programs such as provision of communal lands and enterprises and free health care along with the expansion of the access to education. With an objective tone and formal language, the writer uses illustrations to highlight those strategies and what they have done for the Venezuelan society and

A Comparison of Two Newspaper Articles In this essay I will be comparing two articles taken from local