Rhetorical Analysis Of The Address To The Pacific Lutheran University

It’s difficult to convince anyone to forgo delicious food, but Cesar Chavez, a prominent civil rights activist and union leader, expertly accomplished just that in “The Address to the Pacific Lutheran University”. In the speech, he effectively persuades the audience of friendly Christian consumers to boycott grapes as a protest against an alarming increase in the usage of deadly pesticides, and the systematic poisoning of farm workers during the 1980s. Chavez establishes credibility in his speech by posturing himself as fair-minded, while prompting a sense of guilt and culpability in the target audience of American consumers, as well as inspiring outrage by emphasizing the absurdity and the heartless nature of the opposition, and more importantly

He starts by comparing agribusinesses' argument that “the blame rests with abuse and misuse of pesticides'' instead of physical pesticides to “the N.R.A. saying, guns don’t kill people, people kill people” to highlight their flawed logic. The mostly liberal audience likely disapproves of the N.R.A. and agrees with the flaws within the logic of this argument, as guns are used to make homicide much easier. This comparison highlights that the same flaw exists within agribusiness’s argument, as pesticides are doubtlessly responsible for the suffering of farm workers. By pointing out the absurd logic of agribusiness, Chavez diminishes the opposition’s credibility in their eyes. Similarly, he also compares the arguments of agribusinesses to that of the military during the Vietnam War, referencing a paradoxical statement from a military spokesperson that, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” By making this comparison, Chavez implies that both the military and agribusiness resort to implausible arguments in a desperate attempt to justify their atrocities. At a time when the Vietnam War had just ended, and public support was nonexistent, this comparison strongly portrays agribusinesses in a negative light and serves to prompt great frustration in the audience. In addition, Chavez highlights the cruelty of agribusinesses with a

Throughout his speech, Chavez details gruesome anecdotes about the brutal suffering of the farm workers, and focuses on how it affects their children. He begins with the story of Johnnie Rodriguez, a five-year-old boy who died after a long-suffering battle with cancer. Chavez describes Johnnie’s innocence, depicting how he sat “on his bed, hugging his Teddy bears [and how] his sad eyes and cherubic face stare at you.” This anecdote draws on the audience’s parental instinct by depicting the terrifying fates of helpless children as a result of pesticides. The audience of parent consumers has a natural inclination to help children, and the knowledge that these unsafe practices are causing children to die compels them to boycott grapes. Chavez could have merely mentioned Johnnie’s age and cause of death, but instead focused on vividly portraying the pain and purity of the young boy. This choice makes Johnnie’s tragedy real in the minds of the audience, and allows them to imagine their own children in Johnnie’s situation, provoking a sense of righteous anger. Immediately following the anecdote on Johnnie Rodriguez, Chavez recounts another story of a young child, Felipe Franco, who is also suffering from pesticides. He sadly