Nonviolence Rhetorical Analysis

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.

Chavez then follows with the impact, or effect, of nonviolence, “ we attract people's support. We can gather the support of millions who have a conscience and would rather see a nonviolent resolution to problems” (Chavez, Paragraph 5). Showing the contrast between violence and

Martin Luther King Jr. died fighting peacefully against injustice and for equal rights. Similarly, nonviolent protests must continue to be used today because violence only leads to more violence. For the tenth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, Cesar Chavez illustrated the importances of nonviolence in his article, “He Showed Us the Way”. In the passage, Chavez expresses strong pathos, powerful diction, and complex syntax in order to encourage nonviolence.

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.

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.

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

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

Cesar Chavez, a labor leader and civil rights activist, wrote an article that discusses his strong stand on how using nonviolent resistance is the better way to go rather than using violent acts. Inspired by the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Chavez writes an article about his argument on nonviolent resistance; he accomplishes that by using rhetorical choice like allusions, pathos, and tone.

“Alright pal, you got me,” beamed Finny. Phineas, the only perfect person in the world (hyperbole), just admitted that I had beaten him at something. Once this realization hit me, a moment of pure joy sunk in, until it quickly passed and was followed by an overwhelming sense of disappointment. It wasn’t enough. Without further thought, I quickly flipped Finny, who was caught off guard by his euphoric state, over and pinned him to the ground (parallel structure). To my surprise, after the initial shock left his expression, he began to laugh. Finny had finally been beaten at something athletic, and all he could do was laugh.

unjust” (Banks 1). “Principle four – accept suffering without retaliation for the sake of the cause to achieve the goal – this characterizes that nonviolent resistance is a willingness to accept suffering without retaliation, to accept blows from the opponent without striking back; accept the violence, if necessary; but to never inflict violence on another” (Banks 2). “Principle five – avoid internal violence of the spirit, as well as, external physical violence – a nonviolent resister not only refuses to fight or shoot his opponent, but he also refuses to hate him; at the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love for one another” (Banks 2). “Principle six – the universe is on the side of justice – this basic fact pertaining to nonviolent resistance is that it is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice which is positive peace, consequently, the believer in nonviolence has a deep faith in the future and therefore, can accept suffering without retaliation. There is a creative force in this universe, that by whatever name we decide to call it, it works to bring the disconnected aspects of reality into a harmonious whole; a universal wholeness for each of us to share with one another and that nonviolence is both the means and the end” (Banks 3). Dr. King also had a couple of

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.

All things considered one must devoted to their belief of nonviolence and be willing to suffer without retaliation (Source C), they can not fall victim to anger and fight back, for it would destroy the very principle of the cause. To become a truly successful campaign it should not be run on the basis of humiliating or besting the opponent, rather one should seek friendship and a better understanding of another (Source B). A nonviolent protester should not become bitter of the circumstances the opponent might bestow upon them but rather have open arms and eye for a better future ahead. The central idea of a nonviolent campaign is being able to make changes and spreading peace and love without the use of violence; by pursuing upon this path

Chavez has many rhetorical strategies throughout his essay in order to persuade the readers that nonviolent resistance is the best way to win. Chavez uses alliteration, pathos, and parallel structure to help get his point across and get the reader to pay attention.