He states that if violence is used an even larger amount of violence and deaths will result, "violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps death on both side, or there will be a total demoralization of the workers. " Chavez also explains the possible cause and effect of using non-violent methods. He explains how if every act of violence is responded to with non-violence, a large amount of support to his cause of Chicano labor rights will be attracted. The oppressed people of the United States "still yearn for justice. It is to that yearning that we appeal" will be motivated by witnessing the determination and the strength to use peaceful strategies to fight for the rights that should have been granted from the
By providing his allusion in his speech Chavez adds evidence of a non-violent protest that led the revolution of a country. " As Ghandi taught... Perfect instrument of nonviolent change. " This lets the reader compare the current situation of civil unrest to Ghandi's situation of civil unrest. Ghandi is the prime example of peace and what he believes in is the ideology of peaceful protestors in America's civil rights movement.
Throughout the essay, Chavez kept using words and phrases like “we are convinced,” or the word “nonviolence” to keep his opinion about nonviolence more clear and straightforward. He is trying to get the point across that you have more opportunity with nonviolence than if you take the violent path. Another way Chavez uses rhetorical strategies is though pathos.
His article commences by explaining how “nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and that is of crucial importance to win any contest.” The idea of nonviolence being an offensive strategy is unconventional, but having the willpower to stay composed and civilized is what gives peaceful protesters the leverage over their opposition. Since Chavez compares the way of nonviolence to the strategy of playing offense, the audience feels the urge to act peacefully in order to “win.” In assuming the audience has an offensive mindset when it comes to a “contest,” Chavez creates the perception that, by not physically retaliating, the workers defy expectations and take the advantage in their battle for liberty. To conclude the article, Chavez transitions to the first person point of view, explaining how it would be preferable “to see victory come soon,” but “we are willing to wait” (90–91).
The audience that Chavez is addressing is very familiar with Dr. King, and the troubles he went through so it is not hard at all to relate to the audience with ideas of Martin Luther King. “ Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and that is a crucial importance to win any contest.” With subject of violent an nonviolent means is so important to almost everyone that it makes almost everyone stand on their toes. With the subject Chavez does a good job of stating “we” instead of “I” because of
(Chavez 1) His nonviolent approach to difficulties still have a huge aftermath in our world and change it for the better. The author really emphasizes the trueness of King’s character and his example to our struggling lives to make a better world. Additionally, Chavez uses emotion to change the readers view to the capability nonviolence has. For example, “We are convinced that when people are faced with a direct
The instance in which Chavez states, “Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause,” he is claiming that violence is the root of corruption and deceit, similarly, he is also declaring that nonviolent protest is always pure and candor. Chavez’s tone seems to be suave and compelling in regards to the aforementioned quote, because he’s also convincing a mass people that nonviolence resistance is easy to accomplish if you believe that your cause is worth protesting. When that is the case, a larger number of people will support you if you’re civil- which isn’t the case with violent protesting. As stated in the preceding paragraph, the people in the world were more inclined in siding with the Indian National
He insists on the fact that inhumane vengeance will lead to injury and death, as well as “demoralization”. This argument is greatly supported by the death of Dr. King Jr; his view of nonviolence helped to grow and mature the farm worker’s movement. Civil workers are guilted into supporting their fallen hero in order to fulfill his dying wish. Chavez instructs them to “overcome… [their] frustrations” and support their causes through methods of peaceful protests. Chavez, appealing to their sense of emotion, manages to persuade a disconnected society by desperately wanting to avenge Dr. King’s untimely
To begin with, Chavez uses logos in his speech through a rhetorical question, “Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers.” The people who are arguing for violent revolutions are mostly poor workers whom Chavez refers to. Chavez uses logic to show these people that if they use violent revolts, they are most likely the ones going to be killed which for the most part will deter the people who are aiming for this. Another appeal Chavez uses is ethos to show everyone as people we are expected to do the right thing.
This could impact in losing that hope for a better form of United States unity, which would result in a broken and hopeless country. This reveals to the reader that there would be no positive outcomes if people approach situations with this kind of violence. Chavez wants the reader to come to the realization that nothing beneficial would result in partaking in these violent resistances. Since many people are aware of what violence will bring, it could create an upsetting feeling because the lives that fight are usually the ones being lost. Their own people would suffer the consequences instead of making a
Within the article by Cesar Chavez, the author argues that nonviolence is a better solution to violence. Throughout the argument, Chavez utilizes different rhetorical strategies to convince his audience that nonviolence is more effective than violence. The main rhetorical strategies that are used by Chavez to develop the argument are pathos, parallelism, and diction. In the text, pathos is used to create an emotional bond with the argument and the audience.
This is best exemplified by Chavez when he elaborates on violent tendencies since, “If we resort to violence then one of two things will happen: 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). From Chavez’s statement about violence approaches to solve problems it impacts the audience from the beginning as it makes them question and reconsider what actually gets accomplished by resorting to violent tactics. This also in return, develops the beginning of Chavez’s main argument as it abhors the use of violence to solve ethical/moral problems and shows that temporary solutions are the only thing to come from such
The entire article is empowering and inspirational. A call to action by the author for people who have been suffering from injustice. He acknowledges that people turn to violence “when the deep concern they have for the people is frustrated” and how “the burden of generations of poverty and powerlessness lies heavy in the fields of America” (Chavez, 42-44, 48-50). These quotes can lead the reader to empathize with those who are struggling and allow them to recognize that although violence is an easy way out of confronting issues, the more “honorable” and liberating thing to do is participate in non-violent protests. This is exactly what Martin Luther King Jr. did.
Towards the end of the excerpt, he writes that “the poor, the workers, the people of the land” get killed in violent revolutions (Paragraph 12). In order to connect emotionally with his audience, Chavez appeals to the real-life conditions of the general public and how violent resistance will end up killing them before it accomplishes any goal. Life over cause shows as a theme in his writing, where protesting peacefully keeps your resistance alive, and violent revolts end up killing it. Third, comparing violent protest to nonviolent, Chavez uses longevity to emphasize why violence does not work. Stating that violence provides a temporary solution, Chavez says that ”people suffer from violence” and non-violence brings people together (Paragraph 11).
His repeated use of the word “we” adds to his sense of collaboration. By showing the reader that he is not alone in his fight against oppression and discrimination, Chavez uses the implied “might in numbers” to his advantage. This same convincing tone can be seen in how he lists the benefits of nonviolence and problems of nonviolence and issues of nonviolence. He convinces by stating that “nonviolence is more powerful than violence” and it can “support you if you have a just and moral cause.” By refusing to give any ground to opposing viewpoints in his article, Cesar makes sure that the reader can understand all of his points without looking at any downsides.
