Rhetorical Analysis Of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

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.

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

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 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 had a view that all races work together for one goal, he had the strikers of Delano take a “solemn vow of nonviolence” (Cesar Chavez Foundation, chavezfoundatio.org, ‘Against All Odds’: Cesar Chavez & the Delano Grape Strike). Chavez followed the examples set forth by M.K. Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by using the nonviolence strategy. However for the first time in American History, Chavez used an untested method when he boycotted using California table grapes. The outcome surfaced an exceptional result of major support from outside the Central Valley. The UFW received support from other unions, church activists, and students and civil rights groups. The step was initiated when Cesar Chavez led a 300-mile march that started in Delano and ended at the State Capital of Sacramento. The union garnered National attention across the country and it gave birth and served as the UFW’s stand against unjust treatment against minority

From the start, organizers of the grape boycott aimed at using non-violence to gain the patronage of consumers. In the Proclamation of the Grape Worker, Dolores Huerta states, “We mean to have our peace, and to win it without violence, for it is violence we would overcome-the subtle spiritual and mental violence of oppression, the violence subhuman toil does to the human body”(Huerta). In other words, growers although wrong, often exhibited violence to scare insubordinate workers into complying, yet farmworkers would not succumb to the same wrong by using violence. The most compelling evidence of the violence used against farm workers is described in a new article written by Andrea Castillo. Castillo interviews song writer Augustin Lira, who

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

Even when it looked tough from when people fought the United Farm Workers, “Chavez remained personally committed to nonviolence despite...outbreaks of violence during UFW strikes" (Ribera 390). This showed true determination from César even during the dark times because he kept pushing forward. A famous activist quote made by him about putting himself in front of others was when he “declared that the ‘truest act of courage ... is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice.’” (Ribera 389). This quote helped make Chávez’s true goal known, a non-violent way to achieve fairness for others by putting oneself before another with determination. In order to have their voice heard to the public, the United Farm Workers, with César, launched a “national TV special, ‘The Harvest of Shame’” ("César E. Chávez Middle Level Biography"). The purpose of the special was to have the cruelty of the unfairness the farmers dealt with as it “showed America the miserable working conditions that the migrant workers had to endure" ("César E. Chávez Middle Level Biography"). César wanted to make known of what the farm workers had to go through, Chávez proves to be a role model of true leadership and determination through his tireless efforts as he fought for the rights for others and never gave

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.

Firstly, ethos is continuously used in Chavez's article as a rhetorical strategy. An example of ethos found in the article includes "no one has the right to take it[human life] for any reason or for any cause" (9-10). This pertains to the result of death if violent