About Hugo Chavez Essay

Violence is only the illusion of power, and this is made clear by Chavez’s well-written article. The rhetorical devices Chavez utilizes lend credibility to an already credible argument, and will be sure to convert any supporters of violent protest to a more peaceful

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.

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

Immediately following the thesis of the article, how nonviolent practices have matured, Chavez introduces the premise. The premise is an appeal to authority, a rhetoric which is usually a fallacy. Chavez, however, appeals to the authority of God. Because of this, the premise is not a fallacy, as there are people who believe in God. Twice Chavez appeals to authority, as later in the epitaph he appeals to the authority of Gandhi who is seen as the greatest role model in civil disobedience and nonviolent protests.

One of the greatest civil rights activists of our time; one who believed the ways of Gandhi and Martin Luther King that “violence can only hurt us and our cause” (Cesar Chavez); a quiet, devoted, small catholic man who had nothing just like those he help fight for; “one of America's most influential labor leaders of the late twentieth century” (Griswold del Castillo); and one “who became the most important Mexican-American leader in the history of the United States” (Ender). Cesar Chavez; an American farm worker, who would soon become the labor leader that led to numerous improvements for union workers; it is recorded that Chavez was born near Yuma, Arizona on March 31, 1927 and died on April 23, 1993 in San Luis, Arizona. (Wikipedia) His

Throughout Latin American History there have been several important leaders, but one leader in particular changed Latin American history forever. This particularly important early nineteenth-century leader was named Simón Bolívar. Simón Bolívar as a leader stood out from all the other leaders, because he played a crucial role in Latin American Independence. He was a revolutionary, an intellectual, and a visionary man that made Latin American independence successful during the nineteenth century.

The use of pathos that Chavez incorporated really helped him develop his argument. He says, “If we resort to violence then one of two things will happen: either the violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides, of there will be total demoralization of the workers.” He describes the end results of what violence can do which produces a sense of fear to the audience; it is also obvious that the two options he gave were both unfavorable. When talking about violence, he uses pathos to bring out the negative in using violence. Likewise, he says, “Examine history. Who gets killed in the

My partner and I were struggling to choose a topic,my partner Sondra Satele first picked was Cesar Chavez but i felt like it was too simple we search for someone who was not as common we found to like Oskar Schindler but we didn’t feel like we would find enough resources on him. So we looked deeper into Cesar Chavez’s story as we researched more into the topic we soon came to find that he had a huge impact on farmers. We liked him because he represented a group of minorities that

Cesar Chavez once explained the horrors of society when he said, “When the man who feeds the world by toiling in the fields is himself deprived of the basic rights of feeding, sheltering and caring for is family, the whole community of man is sick.” (ufw.org) That means that the whole of humanity is sick and cruel when the man who works the fields all day long to feed the all of the citizens of the entire world can’t even provide for himself. It was not a small amount of people it affected, it was millions, and millions of citizens across the world. Chavez was a large factor in beginning to abolish racism, or also called the Civil Rights Movement.

Throughout time there have been many people who have wanted to enact change or make a difference. Cesar Chavez helped migrant farmers with their unsafe work conditions and their lack workers’ rights. Mother Jones marched for children’s rights and to create child labor laws. Van Jones is fighting for human rights currently. These people all did amazing things and all fought for a singular purpose.Cesar Chavez, Mother Jones, and Van Jones all helped fight to enact change, by making people notice their cause and by having the perseverance to keep fighting for others to have better lives.

The company was aware of what Chavez was doing, but they didn’t pay that much attention until they started to lose money. The boss of the company was started to get concerned and started sending his people to stop the strikes. The strikes of Chavez were nonviolence so he didn’t care if the police or somebody came to stop it because it’s against the law. However, the boss sends his people over to Chavez and told him that if they don’t stop the strike they will open fire to all the people. The people of Chavez were getting scared, but Chavez was motivating them by saying “si so Puede” until the police shot fire and took Chavez to jail. Cesar kept fighting until he got out of jail and proceed his work he had left. Cesar was losing hope because people were not following him because if they do they will get shot. Cesar stopped eating for a week to see if the people were still caring to change the way they were getting threaten and the people got the message and started doing strikes again without fear. The company was in rage, but they couldn’t do anything and the people were getting hopped. People from other countries were joining them too. People were with Chavez and when the company had no choice but to surrender. Chavez at the end stood up and started to eat again and he does justice for his people and for all the people around the world saying the famous phrase, “Si se Puede”.

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.

It’s 1965, in the middle of a boiling hot summer. Your back is aching from bending over and picking grapes all day long. What do you earn from this hard labor? Ninety cents an hour, plus ten cents per basket of grapes you’ve picked. Besides this pay, you do not have a toilet to use while working, you are denied the right to be a union with your fellow workers, and your employer ignored the laws in place to protect your rights. You are a Mexican- American farm worker, and Cesar Chavez is working to make your life better.

Chavez uses one of his rhetorical questions in paragraph 13, that states, “Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” Then he goes on to make a great point that “poor people” & “Workers” are affected by the violence. This helps him convince the reader by telling how people are being hurt by the violent structures of others making the reader feel like it’s “wrong” to have violent resistance, which is leaning the reader more towards an agreement with the writer.

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