Rhetorical Analysis Of Ceesar Chavez's Fight For Civil Rights

By persuading the audience to sympathize with his point of view, Chavez develops emotional appeals through pathos. In the beginning of the article, Chavez focuses primarily on his side of the argument, but he does not forget to acknowledge the views of the opposing side. He recognizes the conflicting side’s emotions when he says, “We advocate militant nonviolence as our means of achieving justice for our people, but we are not blind to the feelings of frustration, impatience and anger…” (Chavez). By appealing to the audience’s emotions, Chavez creates an understanding relationship with the reader, making them more accepting of his

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

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.

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

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

Chavez was a Latino farmer. He migrated to Arizona. Cesar Chavez was working in the South in hot fields and vineyards. After his forceful speech, he was known as a religious and spiritual person. From Chavez’s background, he understands the hard workers

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 paragraph 3, Chavez uses parallelism to shine nonviolence as positive. His sentences start off as “Nonviolence supports…”(13) and “Nonviolence / provides…”(14-15). His manipulation of diction also combine with parallelism to further increase the weight of his argument. Another use of a combination of strategies is seen in paragraph. Chavez alludes to Gandhi’s successful peace campaign, and that in turn is also effective ethos, in that Gandhi is a prime example of how nonviolent protest is key in change. Chavez also appeals the his audience sense of religious duty, as he mentions 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…”(8-10). His usage of pathos is effective for the same reason as his association with nonviolence and power is effective; both examples take place near the beginning of his argument. His religious audience will feel an emotional bias towards keeping human life sacred, as it is given by God, and that nonviolence is the solution between human life and societal

Chavez used the rhetorical device of pathos to give readers emotional connections to the idea of violent versus nonviolent resistance. He wanted to make

He fought for the rights of people and believed that non violence was the only way to make a change stating that, “If, for every violent act committed against us, we respond with non violence, we attract people's support”. When those who did not support Chavez noticed that he was fighting for his people’s rights, they would respond with violence. Chavez tells the people who are protesting and supporting along his side, that they should not fall under those same circumstances. Cesar Chavez uses casual relationship to contrast the actions of those who are against

Chavez uses one of his rhetorical questions in paragraph 13, that states, “Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” Then he goes on to make a great point that “poor people” & “Workers” are affected by the violence. This helps him convince the reader by telling how people are being hurt by the violent structures of others making the reader feel like it’s “wrong” to have violent resistance, which is leaning the reader more towards an agreement with the writer.

The use public speeches, symbols, flags, newsletters, pickets, music, dramas, processions, and public assemblies were all means of displaying their disillusion of the tyranny. Cesar Chavez’s charisma and use of fasting gained media attention and recognition, this established legitimacy to the outrage. Advocacy and protest played intricate parts in the success of the movement. They were done strategically, sending out very powerful messages that ultimately led to the farmers sitting down and reassessing the rights given to their workers. Cesar Chavez opened eyes with the help of the advocates to seek the huge change they so desperately

Violence is a black hole. When you get sucked into violence, it can be a hard thing to get away from. Chavez uses the emotions and logic of people to convince them that the best thing is nonviolence, so that you will not go down the road of violence. He brings up the reasons that nonviolence is the best way to handle things. If he can prove to the audience that nonviolence is the best, then people will not start down the road of violence, and it would not be a struggle to break away from. He appeals to his audience the reasons, both logical and emotional, that you should stick with nonviolence because violence isn’t helpful to you in the long run.

Chavez alludes to Gandhi and God to create ethos, which establishes trust and credibility with the audience, and pathos, which appeals to the audience’s emotions. Chavez writes, “The perfect boycott, as Gandhi taught, is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change, allowing masses of people to