Rhetorical Analysis Of The Assassination Of Caesar Chavez

737 Words3 Pages

On the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Caesar Chavez, a civil rights leader and labor union organizer, published an article in a religious magazine stating that nonviolence and violent resistance are two different pathways and argues that nonviolence is more powerful than violence. Chavez develops this claim by referring to the Civil Rights Movement and how King exampled the power of nonviolence, inspiring the farm workers' movement and conveying this belief by comparing nonviolence and violence, using sober diction, his connotation, and as well as appealing to the audience through ethos and pathos throughout his article. Chavez's purpose is to reason why nonviolence is the only answer that is right and …show more content…

Chavez appeals to the audience's moral beliefs to effectively convey the reality and differences between nonviolent and violent resistance. Often associating nonviolence with being positive, "just and moral", and violence being negative, "demoralization", Chavez is clearly separating the two methods and associates distinct connotations with each of them, so his audience has a clearer picture of what each method truly is and can decide which pathway they will choose to best fit their movement. Nonviolence gathers the support of the people because of their good conscience and wanting to seek a peaceful resolution. The audience's moral boundaries lead them to believe that nonviolence is the only just and reasonable path to follow. They view nonviolence as choice in which they can voice their opinions for change without the fear and consequences that violent resistance has. Whereas violence makes one lose their sense of life and justice. Those who follow the path of violence are demoralized and despite the outcome, they lose their sense of life and justice. They become, in a way, the very thing that they are protesting against and belittle human life. Chavez, being aware of his audience appeals to their sense of justice and morality through his association and diction when talking about both nonviolence and violence. The overall passage is a …show more content…

In both examples, each respective leader used nonviolence to bring change. Chavez mentions both to emphasize that a movement can bring change without resorting to violence. By backing his claim with previous nonviolent resistance successfully bringing desired change, Chavez instills in his audience that nonviolent resistance has been successful in the past and can be successful for the farm workers too. Additionally, Chavez states, "Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers." In a violent revolution, those seeking change pay a bigger price to pay than the change they receive. He further persuades the audience that violence is not the path they should follow by telling how it will result in a loss no matter what the beginning outcome may appear as. By providing historical examples, Chavez is further supporting his thesis in the minds of the audience that nonviolence resistance has more power than violent resistance does, and nonviolence should be the focus of the farmers'

Open Document