Romero was eager to get involved in the war that was going on between the military elites and the guerilla’s marxists in el salvador.The conditions worsened which made the terms for Romero more and more difficult,The Churches were desecrated but he could not remain just an observer of the whole thing.But then Romero resorts to the only thing he knew was best and that was making speeches.but the tenets that he preached to took into just the freedom and justice they wanted freedom and justice for their country. The government then sees Romero as a threat to El Salvador so then the government retaliates towards romero and they don’t like that romero was encouraging the people in El Salvador to retaliate against the government and fight for freedom.Also the Government would torture the people that Romero cared about the most because they just could not get to Romero and in the end of the movie the government finally got to romero and as Romero was preaching to those el salvadorians that would actually listen to what he had to say, He was preaching and giving a mass to the members of El Salvador. …show more content…
In bishop romero’s life he was a man who defied all orders that he was given and he only did what he thought was best for El Salvador and in the very end of the movie all the defiance that he showed ended up backfiring on the bishop and the bishop ended up being assassinated in the El Salvador’s sacred church. The church that all events happened in, The Church in which the bishop gave all his masses in. That Church is now known as the death place of Archbishop Oscar Romero who was assassinated on
Cesar Chavez had a great pride towards everything he stood for, whether it was his catholic beliefs or protecting his fellow man from the oppressor. Growing up in America, Cesar Chavez witnessed discrimination from being Mexican first hand. By growing up in a family oriented catholic home, he was raised to care about the well being of others and to approach life in a nonviolent manner. Having a father who was a farmer, he witnessed the poor living conditions and wages that were given to him and knew that something had to be done. Cesar Chavez’s fight for improving working conditions for farmers helped him gather a large following of Mexican Americans.
Since Oscar was young he seemed to be battling with the idea of being a “ True Dominican man”, constantly trying to mold himself into something he simply was not. This idea was something in which haunted him through the entirety of his brief life. Many people in his life pressured him, trying to make him this true
In the first several paragraphs Chavez uses pathos to appeal to your emotions, by having influences from the bible and about mortality. In paragraph 4, he applies logos when he says, “ If we resort to violence then one of two things will happen. . .” He also claims we must balance the strategies of what we are doing; however, know that no matter how much misery or poverty nothing is more important than human life. This statement pulls on a persons morals therefore appealing to your emotion. Cesar Chavez mixes ethos and logos when saying, “ If we fail, there are those who will see violence as the shortcut to change.”
The Gospel of Cesar Chavez: My Faith in Action, by Mario T. Garcia, uses Cesar Chavez’s own words to express his spiritual and religious personality and how it led him to organize a movement for a change in the farm workers’ lifestyle of America. Through his experiences and observations with religion and spirituality growing up, Cesar created his own myth by conveying nonviolence and self-sacrifice as the basis of his American religious experience. Thus, paving the way towards reform for farm workers. To be able to understand Cesar’s motive behind his movement, violence and nonviolence needs to be distinguished. A violent movement is a protest that is set up to achieve a goal by using violent acts (riots, house raids, etc.).
To begin with, Chavez uses logos in his speech through a rhetorical question, “Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers.” The people who are arguing for violent revolutions are mostly poor workers whom Chavez refers to. Chavez uses logic to show these people that if they use violent revolts, they are most likely the ones going to be killed which for the most part will deter the people who are aiming for this. Another appeal Chavez uses is ethos to show everyone as people we are expected to do the right thing.
The two allusions to historical figures develop Chavez’s argument as they remind him and the audience of how large of an impact nonviolence had on the world in the past and how it could be applied to the
He insists on the fact that inhumane vengeance will lead to injury and death, as well as “demoralization”. This argument is greatly supported by the death of Dr. King Jr; his view of nonviolence helped to grow and mature the farm worker’s movement. Civil workers are guilted into supporting their fallen hero in order to fulfill his dying wish. Chavez instructs them to “overcome… [their] frustrations” and support their causes through methods of peaceful protests. Chavez, appealing to their sense of emotion, manages to persuade a disconnected society by desperately wanting to avenge Dr. King’s untimely
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
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
Garcia Marquez uses biblical allusions, a varying syntax, and auditory imagery in this passage to express the theme that, regardless of its fairness, fate is unavoidable, so the only thing one can do it accept it. Garcia Marquez uses biblical allusions in this passage to compare Santiago Nasar to Jesus Christ and emphasize that he was fated to die for the sins of others. In the bible, Jesus is said to have died as punishment for the sins of humanity. Jesus’s death is alluded to in this passage and is compared to Santiago’s death at the hands of the Vicario brothers. For one, Jesus died through crucifixion, or by being nailed to a cross.
Cesar Chavez was a Mexican-American farm worker, his social and economical status was one of the worst in the U.S. society at the time, in contrast, he strived and succeeded in his goals, he reached sky high for his thirst of equality and rights for the minorities, nevertheless achieving this through peaceful, non-violent tactics, he fought for several causes and people, Chavez was a force to be reckoned with because he never gave up and he was never afraid of the consequences of his decisions because he knew what he was doing was right, and this mindset made all the difference when it came to sacrifice what you had for the wellness of others. Chavez had a difficult childhood, as many Mexican-American immigrants, he struggled with money problems during his childhood, Chavez was born March 1, 1927 in Yuma, Arizona. His family owned a grocery store and a ranch, but their land was lost during the Great
Juan Ponce De Leon was born in Santervas De Campos, Spain on 1460. Juan led a european expedition for gold and gave the state Florida its name, and went on to become the first governor of Puerto Rico. Let’s go back to his childhood, He was born in a poor but noble family, became a soldier and fought against the Moors in Granada. Ponce De Leon was known for his hard work, ambitiousness, and ruthlessness. He is also known for when he built a small financial empire that helped advance spanish colonization in the Caribbean.
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.
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.
When Santiago Nasar dies, his death had to be determined. In the Catholic religion, it is forbidden to do anything with the deceased. Nevertheless, Father Amador results on performing the autopsy of Santiago. Such autopsy can be interpreted as a “second killing”, taking away Santiago 's honour and his identity of a rich man; where Santiago 's “lady-killer face that death had preserved ended up having lost its identity”(Marquez 76), unrecognisable inside a luxurious coffin. Irony plays the role on criticising the church, it questions religion and illustrates the hypocritical values and role of priests in Latin American society.