Nonviolence Resistance Chavez Ethos Pathos Logos

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.

For example, to describe pesticides, Chavez frequently uses the words “poison”and “dangerous” (Chavez, Wrath of Grapes). It is evident that this is is an example of loaded language due to its negative connotation. It has a negative connotation because the people suffering from the poisonous and dangerous pesticides will be detrimentally affected. This provokes the buyers and farmers of grapes because they will want to put an end to the suffering. Furthermore, when talking directly to the audience to convince them to join the movement, Chavez often states the word “fight”(Chavez, Wrath of Grapes). The word “fight” shows that they are fighting injustice and have something to fight for, thus proving that it is a loaded word. This provokes the audience because they will want to join the fight. Hence, Chavez uses the rhetorical strategy of loaded words to provoke farmers and consumers of grapes to fight in the movement for farmers’ rights and against pesticides.

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

For instance, “... human life is a very special possession given by God to man and that no one has the right to take it for any reason or for any cause” (8-10). Through this passage, Chavez helps the reader feel part of the conversation by referring to “God”. By referring to “God”, he opens the door to the audience's emotions allowing his words in. Then, Chavez uses the emotions he created to help explain that nonviolence only works if everyone is on board. If everyone is not on board, a situation will turn violent, leading to a conflict that only brings destruction of human life. This means that human life is more important than any other reason because God gave us the right to live. Chavez also states that “ People suffer...”( 77). Chavez intelligently used the word, suffer to tug at the audience's heart strings. This sentence helps people understand why violence is bad, people suffer. Also, Chavez makes the point that people “ … learned many years ago that the rich may have money but the poor have time” (93-94). The use of the statement above is Chavez closing remark saying that nonviolence may not be a fast alternative but everybody has time no matter what you have time. In all, Chavez's use of pathos that tug at the emotions of the audience allows them to open their hearts and understand that everyone is here for a reason no matter how small, life should not be

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

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

He tells the nation that it is fatal to overlook the extreme urgency they are facing. The discontent and anger of the Negros will not end until they receive freedom and equality. In his speech he shows alternatives to get freedom and equality instead of by violence. Martin says “We must conduct our struggle with dignity and discipline”. Fighting is no way to solve an issue, in fact it only causes more problems. He convinces the people to march ahead and continue the walk and struggle for freedom and equality.

César Chávez, a civil rights activist in the mid-1900s, stood up and made his voice heard for what he thought was wrong. In the twentieth century he noticed that farmers were being treated unjustly and he wanted to give them the rights that they deserved. He led many strikes and ended up being a great role model to the farmworkers who wanted more rights and better wages. His voice spoke to the people, especially the farmworkers, about injustice and what is right for them. César Chávez led with determination by fighting for the rights of farmers by orchestrating an organization for worker’s rights, battling the government, and never giving up from his cause.

Chavez states, “Our conviction is that human life is a very special possession given by God to man and that no one has the right to take it for any reason or for any cause, however just it may be.” This quick allusion to God can appeal to an audience with a religious background; it gives them a more spiritual connection with what Chavez speaks about. In addition, Chavez says, “The boycott, as Ghandi taught, is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change, allowing masses of people participate actively in a cause.” An allusion to the Mahatma Ghandi, a man who led India to independence from the British by practicing nonviolent civil disobedience, is used here. This really strengthens Chavez’s argument, as Ghandi was successful with what he fought for, which can give more confidence to the audience that nonviolent resistance can

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.

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.

Injustice is a big problem in today’s society. Martin Luther King wrote the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in which he addressed many forms of injustices that was present then and continue to be present in today’s world. Martin Luther King did a lot of things that still effect today. He got in trouble for some things as well; such as like protesting how blacks were treated. He was arrested and was sent to Birmingham City Jail. He wrote a letter to defend the strategies of nonviolent resistance to racism. He employs the use of pathos, ethos, and logos to support his argument that nonviolence resistance is definitive. Based on the pathos, ethos, and logos present in this letter, the article is overall effective to this argument.

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

In the beginning of his essay, Thoreau argues that government fails to prove itself useful for the country. He states that the government receives their power from the majority group. Not cause they hold ideal and legitimate viewpoints, because they are more dominate than the other groups. In Henry Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, the rhetorical devices found in his writing are intentionally used in a similar way and are in parallel with each other to help justify and persuaded his ideals presented. He uses an ethical appeal to express his view on the government and how it should actually be ran. He not only uses ethos to reach out to his audience, there is use of pathos and logos to support his ethical claims in a way to persuade his arguments