Cesar Chavez Rhetorical 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

One reason Cesar Chavez was an effective leader was because he created a union known as the United Farm Workers. Chavez’s goal was to organize the farmers to receive better pay and better working conditions. He was not the first to attempt, others have tried but failed due to the power of growers. He was different, he gained support through encouragement. His exact words were “si se puede”(Doc A) meaning “it can be done”. He encouraged his supporters to seek their rights as farmers. “ The strongest act of manliness, is to sacrifice ourselves for other in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice”(Doc C). Chavez along

From 1954 to 1968, African Americans fought to end segregation in the southern United States through nonviolent protests. As a major leader of the movement, Martin Luther King Jr. encouraged this approach. Ten years after MLK’s assassination, American civil rights activist Cesar Chavez published an article to commemorate the great leader and what he stood for. In his magazine article, Cesar Chavez utilizes logos, pathos, and ethos to convey the importance of nonviolence.

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 his lifetime, Cesar Chavez and his followers made many changes and contributions to society. While he was alive, he had the privilege to see what his non-violence actions produced; what they transpired. It is recorded that Chavez began actively organizing workers in the fields in 1952. The California-based Community Service Organization (CSO) recruited and trained for his work. Chavez built new chapters of CSO, led voter registration drives, and helped Mexican-Americans confront issues of police and immigration abuse during the next ten years. In 1958 he became general director of CSO. With

Cesar Chavez had a view that all races work together for one goal, he had the strikers of Delano take a “solemn vow of nonviolence” (Cesar Chavez Foundation, chavezfoundatio.org, ‘Against All Odds’: Cesar Chavez & the Delano Grape Strike). Chavez followed the examples set forth by M.K. Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by using the nonviolence strategy. However for the first time in American History, Chavez used an untested method when he boycotted using California table grapes. The outcome surfaced an exceptional result of major support from outside the Central Valley. The UFW received support from other unions, church activists, and students and civil rights groups. The step was initiated when Cesar Chavez led a 300-mile march that started in Delano and ended at the State Capital of Sacramento. The union garnered National attention across the country and it gave birth and served as the UFW’s stand against unjust treatment against minority

Cesar Chavez was a civil rights activist who organized the earliest Chicano movements. In an essay by Jorge Mariscal, Chavez’s political ideology is

Cesar Chavez championed for unionization of grape farm workers. Chavez employed strikes, fasts, and boycotts to raise awareness for their cause. Violent retaliation was needless to Chavez so much he believed that the most audacious thing to do was to “sacrifice” one’s self “for others” in the name of justice (Alarcon). Cesar Chavez and his associates were targets of increasing acts of violence. By not meeting violence with violence, their cause fell on listening ears. Cesar and the farm worker’s retaliation consisted of increased dedication and more strikes. Drawing from peaceful protest historical figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez was successful with many labor strikes. Chavez could have raised awareness much more rapidly by using violence. However, he “fasted for twenty-five days” for the unerring choice of peaceful protest (Cesar Chavez Gains Grounds for Farmers). Belief in their cause fueled each protester. A single violent outburst from the workers would ripple outward and cause them to lose ground. The farm workers did not make gains without facing hardships. Cesar Chavez’s fast was the result of “increasing advocacy” calling for “violence” among fellow strikers (History.com Staff). As a leader, one must take responsibility for the actions of their supporters. The strikes were beginning to strain. Careful steps were to be taken in order to preserve the strikers’ reason and renew support. Cesar had to challenge their oppressors

“If you really want to make a friend, go to someone’s house and eat with them. The people who give you their food gives you their heart.” Cesar Chavez and his family moved to California he lived in a poor town called. Sal si puedes which means escape if you can .Then when Cesar Chavez was nineteen he joined the Navy in 1946. For two years but he stopped and joined the CSO in 1952 while working he began to work for latino civil rights. In 1965 the NWFA joined the AWOC in a strike against the grape growers . His bravery was with him the whole time .

Cesar Chavez is undoubtedly one of the most influential civil rights leaders of our time. Sadly, many people, students in particular, focus only on the success of his movement and not the eloquence and character he possessed. This article gives a first-hand glimpse at the rhetorical talent Cesar Chavez made such liberal use of. Throughout this piece, Chavez uses several different techniques to impart his message of nonviolence. His use of tone and provocative word choice plays a major role in the quality and persuasiveness of the article and allows the reader to see just how passionate Chavez is about his cause. However, the most prominent and impactful rhetorical strategy Chavez used were his appeals to the fundamental values and core beliefs

Cesar Chavez’s big thing according to the article “Cesar Chavez: “The Mexican-American and the Church” are all about getting Mexican-American catholic churches, which is cool and all, but it how does that help his people, and

While often forgotten in historical documentaries about the man, Chavez’s views on illegal immigration was very critical. To quote Cesar Chavez, “There is no way to defend against strike breaking when they bring in… wetback, illegals” (Chavez, 2013). Chavez viewed undocumented workers as a detriment to his union, and by his unwillingness to work with such peoples this became a self fulfilling prophecy. “The United States… (has only) made it more and more difficult for people to immigrate and settle as legal permanent residents” (Rodriguez, 2010), meaning that there was an increase in undocumented

Both Chavez and Douglass’ speeches are written at the church, expecting more support from them. As Chavez said, “The Church we are talking about is a tremendously powerful institution in our society and in the

His parents were Mexican immigrants looking for better economic opportunities, but immigrants were treated as second class citizens during the 1930’s in the United States. This made it hard for Chavez father and mother to support themselves let alone for a family a six. When Chavez father tried to buy a house, he couldn’t afford to pay the interest on the mortgage with the family wage. After losing their home the Chavez family moved to California looking for a place to live and work, but this was during the Great Depression making it even harder. Chavez saw how hard his parents to had work hard to buy a house only to lose it because of the extreme low wages they got paid.

He presented his audience with graphs and charts about the different generations of immigrants and how the second generation might not be able to have a very stable job because they are discriminated against and speak more spanish in their jobs meaning they are paid less and also there is a small percentage that go to college because of the lack of opportunities given to them. The children from immigrants are publicly critiqued and questioned their citizenship. Society has created many names for the children of immigrants the most knowed and mention in the media right now is anchor babies because the media is using topic to manipulate the children and their parents. Chavez mention in his book that years before anchor baby was used in a positive way but now is negative. The 14 amendment protects all the laws that want to be made so children from immigrants can’t be citizens. The media is giving a false perspective of how they can change the laws so many citizens can be undocumented like the parents because the government thinks the Mexican want to conquer their old land back. The word nation is derived from the latin word nacere ”to be born” and that allows anyone to become part of the community by birth. Society has the wrong idea of why the Mexican and all immigrants come to this country.