Dr. Martin Luther King

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

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

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.

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.

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

many people still did not want to change. It took a strong leader, a person who believed in peace and justice for blacks, and Martin Luther King Jr. was that man.

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

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

Chavez begins his rationalization reminding the audience of the vigorous efforts Dr.King displayed in his cause; comparing and contrasting violence against non violence. Chavez explicitly states violence leads to nothing more than “injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides” as non violence is “supportive and crucial.” His variation in diction deriving from descriptions of deaths and injuries as opposed to the righteous dignation convinces readers with what they would prefer. Similarly, his mentioning of violence as being harmful to “both sides” helps bring clarity to a point with lack of bias, and demonstrates how violence is damaging to all equally, regardless of his position on civil rights. He later moves on to once again explicitly stating distinct contrasts.

When appealing to the reader’s reasoning, Chavez uses ethos to state that nonviolence has a tactical advantage against oppression. At the same time, he provides explanations as to how violence is detrimental to their cause. He states that nonviolence “provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive” (Chavez, 14-16) and responding with nonviolence “will attract people’s support” (Chavez, 22-24). He also states that resorting to violence will either “cause the violence to be escalated” or create “total demoralization of the workers” (Chavez, 18-21). He contrasts the two points of view to emphasize the positives of nonviolence, while

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