Cesar Chavez Non Violence Analysis

In his first large protest, Cesar went on a long march. When reflecting upon the march Chavez remarked that, “We marched alone at the beginning, but today, we count men of all creeds, nationalities, and occupations in number.” (Chavez, 2) From the very beginning, Chavez brought groups of people together by uniting his small group of protesters with a group of Filipino strikers to create the United Farm Workers. Uniting his group of protesters with the group of striking Filipino workers allowed the protest to become bigger, and therefore more successful. The large numbers also attracted more attention from the media. By uniting groups of strikers, Chavez created a strong protest organization that lasts even today. Another essential group of people Chavez got to join his cause were the consumers. Chavez and his partner Dolores Huerta once wrote, “We called upon our fellow men, and were answered by consumers.” (Chavez, Huerta, 1) Consumers helped the protest by participating in a grape boycott, and did not buy grapes until the grape workers’ needs were met. With this boycott, Chavez tried to weaken the business of the grape growers until they complied, and it worked. When thousands of citizens would not by grapes, the media covered the issue. Through the media coverage, the boycott spread rapidly, uniting people from all over the United States. With the popularity of the boycott, the protest evolved into not just a protest, but a civil rights

In this life, many hope for peace, but not many try to achieve it. According to Martin Luther King Jr’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, there are many ways to achieve this, but the best possible course of action would be through nonviolent direct action, which includes but is not limited to: peaceful protest, sit-ins and civil disobedience. In King’s letter, he proclaims his reasoning behind nonviolent direct action, including: the concept that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (par. 4), extremism can be used positively (par. 22), and the fact that “oppressed people will not stay oppressed forever” (par. 24). King uses literary devices including ethos, logos, and pathos to prove and reaffirm that which he is trying to convey.

Finally, the author utilizes complex syntax to draw connections between ideas and to compare or contrast his points. First, Chavez uses complex sentences to connect the outcomes of violence. An example of this connection is seen in the following quote: “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, or there will be total demoralization of the workers.” In this example, the author uses a colon to help the readers draw the relationship between violence and its effects. Chavez shows that there are no beneficial outcomes of violence, and deepens the reason

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

Chavez achieves his main purpose to persuade to support his view on nonviolent resistance. He does this by not only using many examples, but to challenge the reader into thinking deeper into the lines of his speech. By doing so, as well as using his many rhetorical strategies throughout, Chavez becomes very effective in his

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

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

To begin, chavez's use of decisive short syntax allows the reader to understand clearly the point that is trying to be made. For instance, line 77 states “People suffer from violence.” Chavez used precise wording so the audience can’t interpret the statement into a different meaning. This enhances what Chavez is saying by implying that violence is unacceptable. Also, Chavez uses,” The poor, the workers” (79). By saying this statement he emphasizes the importance of the words and distinctly points out who is affected by violence. This makes the audience feel a connection with the statement that leads to an understanding. Last, but least, line 78 states “examine history”. This statement tells the audience to look at the past and understand that there is no room for interpretation. The past holds the key to the future, it tells us that nonviolence is the key. The use of decisive short syntax helps Chavez make a point that nonviolence is the key otherwise people

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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