Chavez generalizes that masses of people have involved “in their own struggle throughout the movement “and free men and women “instinctively prefer democratic change to any other means,” which is “our best way of avoiding senseless violence.” By doing so, Chavez creates the idea of organized protest as both peaceful and effective, and therefore, makes nonviolence better than violence. To back these generalizations, Chavez uses Gandhi’s credibility. He paraphrases Gandhi in saying that boycott is the “most nearly perfect instrument of change.” Overall, Chavez makes a generalized claim that is easily rational, but locks it down with a quote from the famous nonviolent advocate Gandhi. This ultimately explains how nonviolence is effective, justifies it, and makes it more favorable than violence. Chavez’s use of repetition, generalizations, and credibility effectively persuades everyone of nonviolence.
Swift did not believe in what he was saying, he only wanted to catch the people attention on problems he never clearly states. King’s uses ethos in ways that are easy to point out and seems to be his technique all the way through his letter. Martin Luther King Jr. mentions his own kids and their personal experiences, along with his experiences to show that he knows what he is talking about because he has in fact experienced all the injustices. King is also calm which appeals to his calm nature and showing no harm with fighting for civil rights and equality with the use of nonviolence which he addresses in his letter (In any nonviolent Campaign there are four basic steps…)(1).
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. The two allusions to historical figures develop Chavez’s argument as they remind him and the audience of how large of an impact nonviolence had on the world in the past and how it could be applied to the
Axelrod explains that Roosevelt was not afraid of the problems the United States were facing at the current time, and he was not going to back down against it. Roosevelt was a strong and courageous leader, which was a perfect fit for president. Franklin Delano Roosevelt seen the problems they faced just as material things. He believed that they were able to overcome the issue. Roosevelt said in his speech “Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for,” (page 295 online, paragraph 8) this proves that he had hope for the American people and would do anything to defeat the
Lastly he want to be a good example to the society showing future generation about equality in the society.Therefore, Harrison is hero to his society because, he stood against knowledge and ignorance. For Instance, in countless ways harrison impervious to restriction to society place on him. In Vonnegut’s reading ,“ Harrison’s scrap-iron handicaps crashed to the floor”(page5). The author mention this to his audience because He tried to inform the society that they have been wearing handicap for unequal.in addition, he try to protect the rights and justices of the society, and he was able to set himself for freedom. He accepted the society he detested.
They both did it because they thought it was right and to make a difference to this world. The author of the text about Cesar Chavez recognizes that Cesar was loved by his coworkers and he was praised for what he did. “The fight is never about grapes or lettuce. It's always about the people.” Cesar's motto, "Sí, Se Puede!" ("Yes, it can be done!
By calling attention to this issue and not letting it sit on the back burner to marinate; he is starting a change in how issues are handled or how they are supposed to be handled. If the unrighteousness of oppressing citizens to freely express themselves through speech or peaceably assembly. Martin Luther King Jr.’s words will never be forgotten; in fact, they will forever be carved into our history books for decades to come. His words were not only important in a political manner, for they were also important to the citizens who believed in his words on a grander scale. He impacted endless lives of his time who stood alongside him for what not only he believed in, but what countless others did as
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. It helps the reader paint a picture in their head that they are an army and they have to be smart about how they “attack”.
In the very beginning of the essay, Chavez is able to tie nonviolence to power which supports one of his major claims that non-violent protests still provides an opportunity for the oppressed to “stay on the offensive.” This is able to give the audience the impression that non-violent protests is clearly connected to influence. The author then goes on to mention that people who truly concerned about others will continue on the path of nonviolence. This gives the reader no choice, but to continue in King’s footsteps if they sincerely care about the people in their life. As the article progresses, Chavez’s diction seems to become harsher. In paragraph 4, Chavez describes a possible outcome of violent protests as a “total demoralization of the workers,” but in paragraph 12, he states that only the poor, the workers “get killed in the case of a violent revolution.” This shift in diction is able to convince his audience that violence has repercussion greater than they can fathom.