Rhetorical Analysis Of Cesar Chavez Speech

845 Words4 Pages

In the text his main purpose was to persuade farm workers not to use violence to get their (farm workers) demands met, and boycott grape farms. In doing so the farmers would have to give in to demands of labor leaders. However, due to the struggles of others 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. Chavez uses the main persona of a human …show more content…

Few scholarly journals that deal exclusively with the rhetoric of Cesar Chavez, and even fewer have expanded on his relationship with the Catholic Church. The significance the text has today is the same it had decades ago, however, there is no detailed explaination for what other entities influenced Cesar Chavez. The message of protesting, boycotting, and marching through nonviolence is more productive than a violent one. Mahatma Gandhi was a great inspiration to Chavez. Gandhi was instrumental in India breaking free from English rule. Gandhi was always steadfast on a nonviolent resistance. His fasts were demonstrations that he believed there was good in all humans. He fasted on several occasions. For example, he fasted to stop riots and most famously for freedom from English rule. Chavez, himself, would exhibit fasts throughout his life in the same manner as

Open Document