Former civil rights leader Cesar Chavez justifies nonviolent protest with the use of several appeals to logic and ethics in his contribution to a magazine for a religious organization. His goal being to convince the audience into realizing that nonviolent protest is the more effective option when working towards a change. His optimistic tone helps the reader connect to the cause of nonviolent protest with the help of rhetorical devices like figurative
Cesar Chavez was born in Yuma, Arizona on March 31, 1927, according to United Farm Workers. Growing up, Chavez experienced the feeling of unfairness. In United Farm Workers, Chavez’ father agreed to clear a piece of land that was 80 acres. According to the agreement, in return, Chavez’ father would get 40 acres of land. The United Farm Workers website stated that the agreement was infringed. Because of this, Chavez’ father came to the conclusion that he should hire a lawyer. As stated in United Farm Workers, Chavez’ lawyer suggested that he take out a loan. Unfortunately, things did not go as expected for Chavez’ father. In United Farm Workers, the father could not afford to pay back the money. Around the late 1930s, Chavez and his family moved to San Jose, California. There, they lived in a poor neighborhood called Sal Si Puedes (Get Out If You Can), according to United Farm Workers. Chavez then wanted to get an education in order to escape poverty, but this soon enough did not work out as expected, as stated in United Farm Workers. Chavez’ father had gotten in a car accident, but at the same time Chavez did not want his
This article gave us a rough idea about the public 's response to Cesar Chavez 's actions. It tried to report all sides of the conflict. The public had mixed views. Some supported Chavez 's cause and offered to do anything to support him. Others were angry with Chavez because they didn 't feel he had a just cause, and they hated paying more for their produce. This article also gave Bishop Donelly 's views on Chavez. This was a valuable resource in that it better described both sides of the issue. Giving both sides created balance in the information offered and allowed me to make an informed decision.
The assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. devastated a large majority of people around the world. His works of nonviolent acts against racism motivated many, including civil rights activist Cesar Chavez, to solve matters without resorting to inhumane behaviors. Inspired by Dr. King Jr.’s work, Chavez and his union of labor workers devoted themselves to helping those in need through peaceful protests. Similar methods are proven to be successful; Mahatma Gandhi, for instance, gained a great deal of supporters because of his pacifism and tranquil methods of boycotting against British domination. Despite brutal and savage methods of persuasion slowly gaining support, Chavez proves that nonviolent actions are superior; he does so by using ethos in order to uphold moral standards, logos (in reference to the past), and pathos to appeal to the emotions of his audience.
In this article, Chavez uses rhetorical strategies to develop an argument and his point of view of the subject to the audience. In the first sentence Chavez says that “Dr. King’s entire life was an example of power that nonviolence brings to bear in the real world.” Chavez brings this up to say that one doesn’t need violence or force to make a difference.
One of Chavez’s most well-known protests is the Delano Grape Strike. Chavez is well known for this individual strike because he was specifically asked from the Filipinos, who were the peoples that were affected so they started the strike because of bad pay (90 cents an hour) and horrible working conditions. Cesar accepted the invitation from the Filipinos because he felt as though this strike could have been helpful towards his protesting causes. This strike focused on the pay, working conditions, and the land owner’s violent actions towards the farm workers. Cesar new the fight for these rights was not going to end anytime soon. The most challenging factor in this strike was keeping all the other farm workers fighting for their right as Mexican American farm workers. Some of the supporting men on the strike were starting to resort to the same violence they received from their employers. Cesar devoted this thought from his head as well as the men who came up with it, because he believed that nonviolent actions forced you to be more creative, in other words, it lets you keep control of the offensive, which is highly important in winning any contest, or in this case protest,
Cesar Chavez explained nonviolence as a form of bringing awareness to not only the wages, working conditions and treatment of farm workers, but also the overall treatment of marginalized people in the United States. However, growing up with the perspective of the farmworker’s inspired him to spread the word of resistance against the growers and the government as a whole. Cesar Chavez purpose of La Causa not only inspired people to become a part of something so great, but to inflict change individually by encouraging his brothers and sisters to become mentally and physically strong. Which I believe is the backbone to a non-violence protest. It’s also the mentality a social worker should inhibit because dealing with change, it requires many of
In the entirety of the structure of the text Chavez provides support for nonviolence and then provides the reader with hypothetical situations with the use of the word “if.” The contrast of these hypothetical instances becomes ingrained into the reader's mind throughout the repetitive use and give the association of goodness with nonviolence in comparison to loss of self and emotion by violent ferocity. Seen in the example below, “When victory comes through violence, it is a victory with strings attached. If we beat the growers at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death. Such a thing would have a tremendous impact on us. We would lose regard for human beings. Then the struggle would become a mechanical thing. When you lose your sense of life and justice, you lose your strength,” the text talks about how if we decide to use violence it comes with other unforeseen repercussions and goes into detail of what these consequences are. The references to time provide a contrast and traits of similarity in order to further reinforce Chavez's supportive stance on nonviolence. The use Dr. King, Gandhi and mentions of history in itself provide an ethic to the writer by point out past examples that have proved to be key in rebellions and
Chavez utilizes the rhetorical strategy of repetition throughout the article, repeating words like “nonviolent” and “we” to develop his and others’ stance on nonviolent resistance. Whenever Chavez states the word “nonviolent”, it is usually followed by its positive effects. For example, in the quote “nonviolence supports you if you have a just moral cause,” the word nonviolence is stated and is followed by its positive effect of supporting those with a righteous reasoning,
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
To begin with, Chavez uses juxtaposition to contrast the effects of violent and nonviolent resistance. 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
Throughout his speech there is a determined and insistent tone. Chavez asserts repeatedly that nonviolence is the only way for change to happen. The repeated use of “we”, “us” and “our” conveys the message to the audience that he is one of them. Chavez can relate to the farm workers based on his credibility (ethos) because of his past. Chavez went to work on the farm fields at a young age and knew exactly how the frustrated workers felt. In addition, referencing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the text further established Cesar Chavez’s ethos. King was someone who was revered by proponents of civil rights. Associating an audience with a prominent figure such as Dr. King adds to the credibility in the rhetor.
“Si, Se Puede” or “Yes, You Can” helped Cesar stand up for human rights by believing anything is possible. Nelson Mandela did all he could to stop segregation in South Africa. Cesar Chavez did all he could to help farm workers have better rights. Both Cesar and Nelson did all they could to help their community and never gave up. They impacted the world with their big efforts.
First, Chavez provides strong pathos, ethos and logos to convey the power nonviolent actions have to change the world for the better. He applies ethos to show that nonviolence is something that people are drawn to. In fact Chaves presents a great nonviolent advocate who lived during the segregation: “Dr. King’s entire life was an example of power that nonviolences brings...” (Chavez 1) His nonviolent approach to difficulties still have a huge aftermath in our world and change it for the better. The author really emphasizes the trueness of King’s character and his example to our struggling lives to make a better world. Additionally, Chavez uses emotion to change the readers view to the capability nonviolence has. For example, “We are convinced that when people are faced with a direct
A voice for the muzzled farm workers, a civil rights activist, outspoken about the unfair conditions migrant workers are faced, and inadequate wage given, Cesar Chavez speaks out in his Address in 1984 Commonwealth club of San Francisco. Chavez describes the injustice and unfair conditions farm workers confront on a daily basis, and what the farm workers, as a union the farm workers, must collaborate and do together in order to suppress the companies - growers - unfair conditions. In the speech, Chavez utilizes statistics, testimony, and repetition to not only win justice for the farm workers, but implement the urgent change that needs to happen in the eyes of Americans towards farm workers.