Rhetorical Analysis Of Speech By Cesar Chavez

Chavez wanted to help immigrants and chicanos against discrimination because they weren’t getting the same amount of rights as the americans were getting and heard many complaints about it as he traveled between Arizona and California. As an immigrant and knowing the pain

In this essay he uses great diction to prove a non-violent statement. He is very repetitive with the word “non-violent’’, he even repeats this word ten times! Referencing to Martin Luther King Jr. only helps with the imagery of a non-violent society. By using the word “Demoralization”, Chavez ties together the emotional appeal of this article. The tactics used by Cesar add structure to his purpose. He demonstrates the violence affiliated with the working people and how we should not turn to violence so much as a solutions but however to turn to non-violence as the permanent solution. Chavez wants to make the point to use the power gained through non-violence to help make a better tomorrow.

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

After all Chávez persisted active in the fight for justice and in his proficiency to organize nonviolent demonstrations for workers and civil rights his entire life, the battle he began continues today through the United Farm Workers Union which protects and advocates for the rights of farm workers. In addition, Chávez's example and the accomplishments of UFW inspired

In the text “Commonwealth Club Address”, the speaker Ceaser Chavez speaks about migrant farm workers who are being treated unfairly. Chavez also is the head of the United Farm Workers Union. Chavez makes it clear that the Hispanic political influence in the U.S. will continue to grow because the positive social changes brought about by the UFW are irreversible. The increased population, “increased social and economic clout and increased political influences are going to grow” (230-240). The farm workers power will continue to grow because the UFW is bringing down the death rates in the U.S by making it clear to all of the public that the growers are doing something that is really bad. Chavez also states that “Hispanics are going to be treated

“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 which seethe inside every farm worker.” First Chavez uses emotionally charged language, such as militant, that carries strong emotional weight. Secondly this quote uses the emotional character of a widely revered back bone of the United States, the farmer. Finally using emotional words such as frustration, impatience, and anger makes the literal connection in the reader's mind to the emotional distress people go through. It is not only through emotion that Chavez strengthens his appeal, however, as he also employs clear and direct logic in his

During his address at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club on November 9, 1984 Cesar Chavez sought to gain support for the United Farm Workers union by using rhetorical strategies to convey his message that farm workers need to stop allowing other people to treat them like inhuman farming implements to be disposed of whenever the owner feels they’ve become unprofitable. Chavez's speech starts with a description of a tragedy that highlights the mistreatment of migrants and ends with the belief that the descendants of Hispanic farm workers are the future of California and their accomplishments will enrich the entire nation. The Cesar E. Chavez Foundation articulates that as leader of the United Farm Workers of America,

Cesar Chavez, a civil rights leader fighting for improving pay and working conditions of farmers, employs the use of nonviolence resistance in his role as a leader of the United Farm Workers. As a child, Chavez and his family worked as farmers on a field as migrant workers who were most likely treated in an unjust manner and thus, he dedicated his life to improving the conditions for all farmers. To honor Martin Luther King Jr. on the 10th anniversary of his death, Chavez wrote to a religious magazine that helps people in need about the benefits of nonviolent resistance. Throughout his letter, Chavez applies rhetorical devices such as pathos, diction, and juxtaposition to persuade and inform people about how powerful and effective nonviolence techniques can be for civil rights.

During the mid-20th century, African Americans struggled to acquire equal rights and recognition under the laws of the United States. African Americans fought and protested to obtain equality as the whites. After the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. many blacks began to protest more frequently leading to violence. In the speech, Chavez implores the people to put an end to violence and how it’s not more effective than the nonviolence resistance. Chavez appeals to pathos and ethos to develop his argument on why the citizens should turn to nonviolence resistance.

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.

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

Although he acknowledges the frustration and anger people feel when they are “faced with seemingly insurmountable odds”, he emphasizes the need to have patience in order to achieve “justice for our people”, thus excluding those who wish to “espouse violence” onto the people. Chavez’s appeal to morality and powerful choice of words greatly promotes his cause meanwhile stigmatizing the usage of nonviolence and the suffering that comes along with it.

Chavez uses many persuasive elements in his article to get the readers to support nonviolent resistance instead of using violence to fight for what they believe in. He uses the big idea of passion to represent what he believes in, and what he is passionate about. This is important because it helps the reader in also being passionate about what Chavez believes in, and shows how using nonviolent resistance can be more effective than using

Ultimately, Chavez’s empathetic approach to social justice spurred the movement leading to the mobilization of common

Every leader's goal is to better something. In Barack Obama's case, and Cesar Chavez’s case they both want to better our union from different aspects. In the “Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: ‘A More Perfect Union’”, and “What the Future Holds for Farmworkers and Hispanics” the authors make a claim that they want to better the union. Obama wants the whole Union to better Itself by working together, whereas Chavez hopes that with bettering the union comes with better treatment of Hispanics and Farm Workers. Both use ethos, logos, and pathos to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of their argument.