He covers topics such as morality, or lack thereof, shown by violence and nonviolence, as well as honor. Chavez’s rhetorical choices made in favor of his argument seems to have a lasting effect as people today still resort to nonviolent acts of resistance against their government. The first argument made by Cesar was with concern over morality. He believed that nonviolent actions had the ability to show the people you’re opposing that you still have a both just and moral cause. Chavez said that “If we resort to violence, then one of two things will happen: either the violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps death on both sides.
In lines 37-39, Chavez emphasizes the worth of a human life by stating that no matter how much misery or exploitation exists, it is not worth an irreplaceable human life. This counters violence because in violent resistance, lives are lost to the cause. By stating that no cause is worth losing a life, Chavez is able to make his readers stop and think about the worth of one human life. This helps his overall argument because in nonviolent resistance, no lives have to be lost to the cause. Again, this idea is emphasized in lines 74-78.
Cesar Chavez influences poor labor workers that nonviolence is the best way to make a change. The rhetorical devices Chavez uses within the article catch the workers attention and helps make them feel as if they can make a change, and of all the devices, his militant diction influences the reader most. The sixth paragraph of his article uses military diction by stating, “But if we are committed to nonviolence only as a strategy or tactic, then if it fails our only alternative is to turn to violence.” This means that if they think of nonviolence as a type of strategy instead of making it a mindset then they will become violent. It helps the reader paint a picture in their head that they are an army and they have to be smart about how they “attack”.
In paragraph 4, Chavez describes a possible outcome of violent protests as a “total demoralization of the workers,” but in paragraph 12, he states that only the poor, the workers “get killed in the case of a violent revolution.” This shift in diction is able to convince his audience that violence has repercussion greater than they can fathom. Even though Chavez tries to sympathize with his audience that “we are not blind to feelings of frustration” he makes it clear that there must be a balance between peaceful and violent protests ,and that we also must have the strength to be patient in times of anguish. The line, “Those who espouse violence exploit people”(Paragraph 12), serves the intention of bashing
He sets up his argument by saying that there are specific steps to take during a nonviolent campaign. He then elaborates on what he did to accomplish these steps. He justified his actions by saying, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such a creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue”(266). He also refuted how the clergymen told him his actions were untimely by stating that, “This “wait” has almost always meant “never””(267). He even discredits the clergymen even more by saying “it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say wait.” MLK’s ultimate claim is that the church is to blame for these happenings and “the judgement of God is upon the Church as never before”(276).
Montag must abandon all previous views and principles he had about society to enable a change. Through the character of Montag, Bradbury suggests that individuals are courageous when they sacrifice themselves for the improvement of society, even when there is a risk of achieving nothing. Initially, Montag seems as static and obedient as all the others in this totalitarian society; however, through talking with Clarisse, Montag’s views change, causing him to question the rules around him. He realizes how dull and pointless his life is. Stealing the book from the fire is his first courageous act because it shows how much Clarisse has influenced him.
Kanye West attitude towards the violence is more understanding. Kanye W. attitude the violence is more understanding because he doesn’t agree with the violence at all. “it’s time for us to stop and re-define” he believe that violence is an appropriate solution for resolving conflict in his community.
Kennedy aimed to get at most in his speech was the idea of unity; in writing “The Mindless Menace of Violence”, RFK’s audience movement was to take American’s away from the idea that differences were faults, and that deviating from the “ideal race” was dangerous and to be punished. By using 1st person, 1st person plural, and 2nd person, he creates a sense of “us” rather than a sense of “them”. In paragraph one, he uses both 2nd person and 1st person plural in one sentence, “I have saved this one opportunity to speak briefly to you about this mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.” By beginning with 2nd person, RFK separates himself from the American public, establishing himself as the one to deliver the wake up call for change, and then reconnects himself to the audience by switching to 1st person plural and showing that senseless violence must be addressed by all Americans to form any real change. Paragraph 11 also houses a significant change in point of view: “When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues[.]”. Kennedy uses “you” to represent American society; particularly those who promote inequality and prejudice.
It all happened so fast that’s an example of pathos since he used a story and emotional impact. Eli Wiesel made sure he expressed his claim throughout his speech he showed that we shouldn’t divide others due to their race, religion, or political views. He also believed violence is not the answer and we should act on more peaceful solutions. Eli states that “violence is not the answer. Terrorism is the most dangerous of answers.
Furthermore, forgetting makes the public accomplices. It does no good for anyone involved in the situation except for the despot. “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented, Sometimes we must interfere.” (Wiesel 118) By writing this novel Wiesel was taking a stand against the people who caused his so much trauma. He is interfering in his own way, by making sure the public does not allow the past to be
Throughout the article, Chavez counters nonviolence with violence informing the "what ifs". 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.
“In the chaos, it was not immediately clear which agencies did what exactly …” (Levs, 2). This shows the lack of knowledge the authorities had about the situation, and how eager they were to put an end to the riots without thinking about the safety of the protesters. “Chief among them are making decisions like deploying heavily armed officers and using military equipment; which some experts say helped to make a bad decision worse” (Levs, 2). Having the Militarized units, as well as equipment, being brought in caused many people to voice their opinion on the choices being made by the authorities, and how they are affecting the community and the protesters. “Militarization of policing encourages officers to adopt a ‘warrior’ mentality and think of the people they are supposed to serve as enemies” (Levs, 3).
Violence can trigger emotions that cannot be undone which can lead to regret. Wes’s father wanted to teach Wes that violence is not tolerated especially a lady. For the other Wes, he never had a father to guide him to make the right decisions or reprimand when he was wrong. This is one of the key factors into why the other Wes got into trouble with violence and drugs. Even though the author did experience trouble with violence and drugs, he realized violence would lead to more violence.