In the speech Chavez says, “We are also convinced that nonviolence is more powerful than violence.” He then goes on to say that violence causes deaths and demoralizes the people, while nonviolence attracts people’s support and is morally just. The use of juxtaposition as a rhetorical device throughout the whole speech shows the pros of nonviolence and the cons of violence. This technique helps Chavez develop his argument because it creates a favorable bias
Acclaimed activist and political leader, Cesar Chavez, in his article, attempts to convince the laboring class and those in need in America to restrain from any use of violence during their struggle. Throughout his article Chavez is able to maintain a predominantly straightforward positive tone in order to motivate his audience to lean more towards a non-violent approach to their problems. His purpose is to persuade the laboring class in America to abstain from any use of violence during their struggle. Chavez further elaborates his desire and purpose for his followers by utilizing the use of pathos and logos. Chavez is in the mentality that nonviolence is the only way his followers- the rest of the labor union- will achieve their goals and abstain from any injuries or harm that could possibly happen to them.
Cesar attempts to share his thoughts with the masses in order to spread his solution to violence. He evokes strong emotions such as sadness, and guilt within his audience, along with posing logical questions that really make the audience think and listen to what he is saying. It is essential that Chavez's audience knows nonviolence has a more profound, lasting effect on society that paves the road ahead for change. In order to evoke this change Chavez must alter the way his audience thinks. He prods at their emotions by bringing religion into his argument and relying on the people's faith to change their thinking, he states
Also he uses irony to show why we are so opposed to the idea of nonviolent solutions or why we have such a hard time trying to use nonviolence to solve problems when we have basically programed ourselves to use violence to solve everything. In the sentence “When victory comes through violence, it is a victory with strings attached.” Chavez very bluntly told us that a victory isn't a true victory if we resort to using violence against each other it was merely a means to an end. Also in the sentence “ If we beat the growers at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death.” he is telling us that by using violence we will eventually lose all regard for human life and our humanity will dwindle away until there is nothing left of
Chavez begins his argument by saying that a human life is an irreplaceable “possession given by God”. By resorting to violence, it has the grim possibility of being taken away. Chavez further expands his use of ethos by providing examples of ethics and morals. Nonviolence gathers support for moral causes, whereas unethical actions create discouragement among followers. Violence is merely the result
What Dodge implied about state failure, violence, and legitimacy made total sense. “The violence that shook Iraq after 2003 was a direct result of the security vacuum created by the lack of troops to impose order.” If Iraq’s military is failing at national security, it’s only allowing violence to persist. It’s also allowing a more powerful military to come in, and take control. If there is no order, there will be chaos.
Cesar Chavez on the tenth anniversary of Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr's assassination, wrote an article in a religious organization's magazine. In his article, he accentuates his argument on nonviolent resistance. By the use of specific examples and rhetorical devices. He appeals to his crowd and provides his argument as to why nonviolence should be used to accomplish their goals. One of the specific examples being that Dr.Kings life exemplifies the farm workers movement.
Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these. The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.
O 'Brien use the symbolism the dancing Vietnamese and Mary Anne to show that war can destroy your humanity and innocence. It also use the allegory of the letters of Martha, and Linda, are used to show the past can either hurt or help you someone in war. The destruction of humanity and innocence it 's something terrifying, war can transform you completely into someone else that at the end you will no be able to recognize yourself. And in war you will need to take decisions that you may not like, you will need to get ride of things that you don 't want to let go of the past so you can be able to survive, and your decisions can hurt or help
War is not about coming home a hero, it is the survival of your life and when you’re there; there is no way out, hence don’t listen to stories given about the great stories because it may be a lie. In addition, O’Brien says that a true war story “is never moral. It does not instruct nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior…you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil” (O’Brien 347). This quote proves the fact that we are born to expect events such as war to be an honor, however it is a hell; if it sounds too good to be true than it is a true war
Chavez states "if it fails our only alternative is violence". The people need an understanding of what is taking place in order to handle however amount of struggle is occurring nonviolently. Violence happens when concern about any human aspect gets deepened. Nonviolence is a more successful way to prevent future issues.
These would be the only factors that would cause the American people to unify because all Americans care about the safety of the country and would never want to see an enemy step foot into the country. Anything else would not cause unification because everyone has different views on everything except the safety and well-being of democracy and capitalism. Being threatened causes humans to jump into a defensive mode and this is what makes it easy for a nation to come together; we are always willing to do anything to keep our safety in check. I also firmly believe that if there was another attack on the homeland like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, the country would unite to fight. Attacks like these show the nation that although we are a superpower, we are open targets.
He feels that the opinion of the general public is that we are losing the war. However, his opinion is that ISIS is being defeated and “is today’s most significant threat”. One interesting argument that Mockaitis makes is that the upsurge in terrorist activity might be a sign of weakness. He writes, “As ISIS is squeezed in its heartland, it lashes out farther abroad in a vain attempt to intimidate the United States and its allies.”
lead his protests, he not only effectively brought entire communities together, but preached non violence. He once said “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” Non violence effectively isolates persecutors of violence that stand against your cause, and also brings moderate people to your movement.