Rhetorical Analysis Of Cesar Chavez And Martin Luther King Jr.

Decent Essays

Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King Jr. were connected by a telegram and a common goal of civil rights. On the tenth anniversary of King’s death, Chavez wrote an epitaph for King. The rhetorical devices used in the article highlight clear points in agreement and contrasting with King, while displaying a simple idea: nonviolence is key.
Immediately following the thesis of the article, how nonviolent practices have matured, Chavez introduces the premise. The premise is an appeal to authority, a rhetoric which is usually a fallacy. Chavez, however, appeals to the authority of God. Because of this, the premise is not a fallacy, as there are people who believe in God. Twice Chavez appeals to authority, as later in the epitaph he appeals to the authority of Gandhi who is seen as the greatest role model in civil disobedience and nonviolent protests.
Chavez also claims that in practicing nonviolence justice can be achieved for the people, “but we are not blind to the feelings of frustration, impatience, and anger” (lines 46-47). In doing so, he alludes to justice being blind. The metaphor is easily overlooked, but in saying that …show more content…

The use of pathos throughout the piece connects him with readers to convince them of his point. He touches onto the counterposition in spots, using short, concise comments to explain the fault and continue with his own argument. Some of his word choices flow into the theme of both sides of the controversy. He states the importance of staying on the offensive, and the cruciality to win and not place the defensive and ‘not lose’. Later, Chavez says “If we beat the growers at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury” (lines 66-67). His word choice shows his counterposition to the idea. Had he said defeat rather than beat, he would have had to been referring to nonviolence, as beat is offensive in a harsher tone, and defeat is

Get Access