Rhetorical Analysis Of Non Violence By Chavez

701 Words3 Pages

Aiden Schroeder
Mrs. DesLauriers
AP Language & Composition
11 January 2023
Resisting Violence: Non-violent Protest Perseveres Throughout Martin Luther King Jr.’s life, he advocated for nonviolent resistance to oppression and racism in America. The solution to the long lasting problem was found in his words and his strength of mind, rather than violence and physical strength. Today, the strategy of nonviolence keeps proving its effect. Using patience and fortitude effectively resists any oppressive force, so long as the masses hold strong. Chavez writes in the name of King Jr. and his success without violent measures. He emphasizes the downfalls of violence and the moral and ethical benefits of nonviolent resistance to oppression. …show more content…

First, Chavez uses his tone to portray a general negative feeling towards violent protest. He does this through statements like, “many injuries and perhaps deaths,” and, “complete demoralization of the workers” (Paragraph 4). Chavez makes these points with a serious, dead-pan tone, to emphasize how much violent protest contrasts with nonviolent ones and the largely unsatisfying result. Violence, in his opinion, never works and therefore never should be used. The excerpt from Chavez also uses many instances of pathos to further dissuade readers from using violence to protest. Towards the end of the excerpt, he writes that “the poor, the workers, the people of the land” get killed in violent revolutions (Paragraph 12). In order to connect emotionally with his audience, Chavez appeals to the real-life conditions of the general public and how violent resistance will end up killing them before it accomplishes any goal. Life over cause shows as a theme in his writing, where protesting peacefully keeps your resistance alive, and violent revolts end up killing it. Third, comparing violent protest to nonviolent, Chavez uses longevity to emphasize why violence does not work. Stating that violence provides a temporary solution, Chavez says that ”people suffer from violence” and non-violence brings people together (Paragraph 11). Comparing these reveals that with violence, even when it succeeds, it only replaces an oppressive, violent force with another one. To accomplish revolution, non-violence holds the most leverage and gathers the most people. Concluding, Chavez successfully downplays violence as a viable option for resistance to oppression by rhetorically convincing his audience

Open Document