preview

Cesar Chavez Civil Rights Movement Summary

Decent Essays

The Civil Rights Movement, led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., played a massive role in American history and it did so not through a revolution of savagery, but one of peace. The right to peaceably assemble for change has always been a staple in American society, defined as a right in the first amendment to the Constitution, ensuring that everyone could protest and call for peaceful action without being persecuted by the government. In 1978, Cesar Chavez wrote an article addressing the usefulness of “nonviolent resistance,” especially referring to Dr. King’s Civil Rights Movement. His usage of juxtaposition, logical fallacies, and unifying diction assist in Chavez’s attempt to drive the point that nonviolent resistance is the greatest way to …show more content…

So is the case for Cesar Chavez and the argument he develops in favor of peaceful protests. Case in point: Chavez makes a rather blunt claim that “If we resort to violence, he one of two things will happen: either [it] will be escalated and there will be [losses] on both sides, or there will be total demoralization of the workers” (Chavez 17-21), assuming that these are the only two possible options creates an either/or fallacy error, it is entirely possible that there are other options. Perhaps one side will emerge entirely victorious over the other, there are an untold number of other options that could be available. Chavez also utilizes appeals to pity to convince readers that his movement is morally superior to that of standard groups pushing for change. This is evident when Chavez writes that he believes that “...when poor people are faced with a direct appeal from the poor struggling nonviolently against great odds, they will react positively” (Chavez 27-30) and that “[his movement] can gather the support of millions who have a conscience…” (Chavez 24-25). Chavez’s usage of the phrase “people who have a conscience” alone manipulates the logic of regular people by convincing them that if they aren’t a part of nonviolent resistance, then they have no conscience, which clearly is not the case as people can choose to not involve themselves whatsoever and still have a clear moral compass in line with that of a reasonable society. Chavez’s bandwagoning claims that “The American people and people everywhere still yearn for peace” (Chavez 30-31) so as to convince the audience that since so many people already “yearn for justice,” that they should as well. Besides these fallacies, Chavez utilizes one far more than any

Get Access