More handpicked essays just for you.
2015 rhetorical analysis cesar chavez
2015 rhetorical analysis cesar chavez
2015 rhetorical analysis cesar chavez
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
(Chavez 13) All these protests have just led to more violence and not helped. He brings up that the “poor and workers” are the ones killed in the violence. (Chavez 13) The normal people contributed to the violence and gained nothing from it.
In line 62 Chavez also provides a reference to Gandhi who was well known for his idea of nonviolence and promoting it. Next, Cesar Chavez uses logos as a rhetorical device
Cesar Chavez influences poor labor workers that nonviolence is the best way to make a change. The rhetorical devices Chavez uses within the article catch the workers attention and helps make them feel as if they can make a change, and of all the devices, his militant diction influences the reader most. The sixth paragraph of his article uses military diction by stating, “But if we are committed to nonviolence only as a strategy or tactic, then if it fails our only alternative is to turn to violence.” This means that if they think of nonviolence as a type of strategy instead of making it a mindset then they will become violent.
He applied cause and effect to prove the outcome MLK’s followers could have if they stick to the nonviolent root. He argues the basic ideal that “people suffer from violence” and he gives the effects of violence which are the loss of strength, a person’s actions become mechanical, and the loss of regard towards human beings. Chavez then utilizes rhetorical questions to allow the audience to ponder why poor workers would commit violence without getting anything satisfactory in return? This creates the overwhelming decision that there is no point for a small poor farmer to commit these horrendous acts of violence if they are just receiving bloodshed in return.
In Cesar Chavez's article he begins to compare the past with the present. He asks the audience to "examine history," Chavez also questions the audience by asking, "Who gets killed in a violent revolution? The poor, the workers". Chavez puts into perspective how violent actions have caused nothing but harm to revolutions and the people involved in those
Cesar Chavez persuades his farm workers that nonviolence is as powerful as violence. He says that people should try to eliminate the amount of violence we use. Chavez does this in a unique way across his article by using personification, irony, and oxymoron to persuade the farm workers. Cesar Chavez uses personification throughout the article to help create characteristics to non living objects.
The Gospel of Cesar Chavez: My Faith in Action, by Mario T. Garcia, uses Cesar Chavez’s own words to express his spiritual and religious personality and how it led him to organize a movement for a change in the farm workers’ lifestyle of America. Through his experiences and observations with religion and spirituality growing up, Cesar created his own myth by conveying nonviolence and self-sacrifice as the basis of his American religious experience. Thus, paving the way towards reform for farm workers. To be able to understand Cesar’s motive behind his movement, violence and nonviolence needs to be distinguished. A violent movement is a protest that is set up to achieve a goal by using violent acts (riots, house raids, etc.).
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
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
From Organizer of the Farm Workers’ Movement to the Spiritual Symbol of the Chicano Movement, 29 July 2011, www.http://lessons-of-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-cesar-chavez. This website critically analyzes the importance of Cesar Chavez in the field of labor history. Chavez is considered to be a great civil rights leader among Mexican Americans and other Latino groups that have suffered from “internal colonialism” and who have been treated as second-class citizens in the United States. As stated on the website “Chavez was able to solicit hundreds of individual stories of injustice and reweave them into a broader story of economic, political, and racial injustice that enabled him to speak on behalf of Mexican descendants throughout the United States.” He saw himself as a labor organizer rather than an ethnic movement leader; the farm worker’s struggle that he had encouraged is what came to be known as the Chicano movement of the late 1960s.
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.
He states that staying nonviolent despite the oppression and the hardship will prove to people the moral strength of those fighting for justice and shows others the reason as to why they should give his movement their support. Chavez also states that human rights are given to them by God and no one should be able to take that away which is something that any Christian reading his article would agree with. He continues to state how people are inherently good the migrant farm workers nonviolently protesting are continuing despite how hard it seems to try to convince those that are also morally good that they should support the movement. The people who read this article are the same ones who help the protest and furthering of the Civil Rights Movement, so Chavez is trying to show them that this movement is just as unjust and important to
Therefore, powerlessness and poverty are knows for the workers in the fields. Chavez wrote his article to build an ethical, logical, and emotional appeal to not only defend the farmers in the union, but to persuade the farmers to react to violence with nonviolent resistance.
Cesar Chavez is a leader, and civil rights activist, the article he wrote was to prove how the use of nonviolence over violence is a better way to achieve change in the world. He does this by using many rhetorical devices such as repetition, counterargument, and using the if-then structure. Through these devices he hopes people will see the effectiveness of nonviolence. Throughout the article Chavez uses the if-then structure to illustrate the outcomes that come with the decisions we make. In the fourth paragraph Chavez says, "If, for every violent act committed against us, we respond with nonviolence, we attract people's support," he is addressing the people and showing them that the more we use nonviolence against violence to solve a dispute the more options there are.
In the first paragraph Chavez mentions Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, stating that Dr. King’s “entire life was an example of power that nonviolence brings…” This reference to Dr. King causes those who know of his impact to realize that he lead a strong historical example of what nonviolence could achieve. By using Dr. King as an example it indicates that Chavez thinks that if nonviolence had heavily impacted the past, then it would most likely do the same in the present and future. Chavez also makes a reference to Gandhi and his nonviolent boycott in India, claiming that what he taught “is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change.” By using the word perfect to describe Gandhi’s teachings of nonviolence, it further supports Chavez’s stance for nonviolent resistance.
