Rhetorical Analysis Of The Assassination By Cesar Chavez

In Cesar Chavez’s article published on the tenth anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, he argues that nonviolent approaches to society’s moral and ethical dilemmas can make much more of an impact and end in better terms that work more favorably for the majority. Chavez supports his claim by describing the use violence to solve issues can result in severe consequences, implementing anaphora throughout his argument to make constant repetition of nonviolence stand out to the reader, and utilizing formal diction to make his advocation for nonviolent methods more appealing to the masses through direct explanation. The author’s purpose for writing this article is to highlight and incorporate his own views on non-violent strategies

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

Martin Luther King Jr., plus his own beliefs and conclusions, shows that nonviolence methods historically and analytically accomplish much more than violent tactics. The utilization of formal diction in Chavez’s article is proven to be most evident when he mentions, “The greater the oppression, the more leverage nonviolence holds. Violence does not work in the long run and if it is temporarily successful, it replaces one violent form of power with another just as violent. People suffer from violence” (Chavez). By the author using formal diction, especially towards the conclusion of his article it makes the audience have to or want to agree with him as the statements he provides don’t leave much room for counterarguments and instead reaches to the audience's logos or reasoning. This also establishes the overarching argument Chavez is trying to make, that nonviolent approaches allow for much better long-term results with less damage done to all parties involved in such