Cesar Chavez Pathos

In the excerpt, by Cesar Chavez the author argues that fighting with violence is not the answer. The intended purpose of the article is to inform the people of a better and safer way to fight. Through the use use of diction and imagery the Chavez appeals to to emotion and exemplifies the significance for change. Chavez’s use of diction helps encourage people to fight for change. In the article he stresses how, “nonviolence is more powerful than violence.”

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.

Pathos is a quality that evokes pity or sadness on an actual life experience or literature. Chavez uses pathos in order to appeal to the audience’s emotions, values, assumption and sense of identity. It is an expression of hatred and darkness in the world of literature. For example, Chavez applies this concept of Pathos to the audience when he states, “The fast was meant as a call to sacrifice for justice and as a reminder of how much suffering there is among farm workers.” This assertion appealed to intended audience because it symbolize moral and spiritual uniqueness. Chavez was a devoted catholic who took priority in helping humanity. He wanted the audience to learn about their human rights and worked diligently to humanize them from

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.

Further on in the article, Chavez adds power to his contentions with implications. "The boycott, Gandhi taught, is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change." This implication to Gandhi, a notable and regarded advocate for serene resistance, adds validity to Chavez' contention by suggesting that Gandhi would have concurred with and bolstered Chavez' claims. Chavez increases on his believability by making a historical allusion soon after. "Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?

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

Along with other rhetorical strategies, Cesar Chavez uses a lot of personification throughout his excerpt. He does this to make it an argumentative point to the migrant workers in California that violence is not the answer. Cesar feels as if violent actions will get nothing accomplished. In comparison, he feels like nonviolent reactions can be much less hurtful, and very powerful in a peaceful way.

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

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.

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.

“I have found that words that are loaded with pathos and create a seductive euphoric are apt to promote nonsense” (Gunter Grass). Cesar Chavez proves that ethos and pathos can actually be very effective in promoting their case. In an article he wrote, Chavez used the rhetorical strategies of ethos and pathos to make his case and express his opinion about violence and nonviolence. Both of these strategies proved to be very effective throughout his entire article.

The comparison of violence to nonviolence highlights Chavez’s argument that nonviolence is the only way to achieve positive results. Chavez characterizes violence as a temporary solution in which “people suffer.” This description of violence as a last resort that results out of frustration is in stark contrast to Chavez’s characterization of nonviolence. Nonviolence stems from oppression. It is exercised as a form of self-determination

When the depression hit in August 1929, millions of people were left jobless. Many Mexican Americans fled to the fields for a job, working for growers who ignored their rights and gave paltry pay. Cesar Chavez and his family lost their family store and decided to go to America. They began the drive to California with only $40 of savings. His family quickly went to work in the fields, moving around frequently to find work. After Cesar Chavez’s father was injured in a car accident, Cesar dropped out of 8th grade to work in the fields full time. He worked for a few years until he joined the Navy in World War II. He worked in the Navy as a janitor, unable to get a better job. He felt like his

In Cesar Chavez’s article, he alludes Gandhi and God to remind his people why they must continue to fight with nonviolence. When Chavez states “Our conviction is that human life is a very special possession by God to man” shows Chavez using God to express how all our lives are precious and resulting in violence could do more bad than good (9-10). He does not want us to stoop down to their level and by acting with violence we will be doing exactly that. Chavez also alludes to Gandhi when he states,” The boycott, as Gandhi taught, is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change, allowing makes of people to participate actively in a case” which displays that Chavez is trying to remind them that harmless methods are more effective. If you were

“Letter from Delano”, by Cesar Chavez, the writer is attempting to perform this impossible feat on E.L. Barr Jr., the president of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League. Throughout his life, 1927 to 1993, Chavez was a prominent civil rights activist who fought for the rights of farm workers. He performed nonviolent protests including marches, boycotts, and hunger strikes. One famous boycott was the Grape Strike, in which Cesar urged Americans to buy grapes from foreign places in order to bring attention to the plight of field workers. By 1969, when the letter was written, Chavez had already co-founded the National Farm Workers Association. His goal was to fight for better treatment, increased pay, and improved working conditions. His nonviolent methods were extremely similar to the protests of Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated in 1968, over the rights of African Americans. In the letter, Cesar Chavez is specifically addressing claims, made by the California Grape and Tree Fruit League, of a violent protest performed by the farm workers. Throughout the letter, Chavez confronts the shocking accusations, explains his use of nonviolent methods, and emphasizes the purpose of his protests. He strives to make the president understand the plight of the workers and view their protests as a product of the worker’s determination for change, not as violent and personal attacks that