Summary Of The Civil Rights Movement By Cesar Chavez
Civil rights leader, Cesar Chavez, writes in his article the importance of nonviolence in the farm workers’ movement on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination. His purpose is to argue for nonviolence over violence. In order to do so, he adopts a warning tone to ward his fellow members in the movement from considering a strike back. When Chavez presents his arguments, he grounds them with justification founded historical authorities on peaceful resistance. In the beginning of his article, Chavez acknowledges the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination, who was the prime leader of the civil rights movement, using the occasion to call for a reflection of their own movement. By using Dr. King’s name, he communicates he identifies with him and increases his credibility in the reader’s eyes. Furthermore, he references Ghandi while discussing boycotts. In doing so, he asks the reader to think back to Ghandi’s role in the Indian independence movement. Chavez links his name to his argument, and has the reader connect his successes to his argument. By using these two historical characters, he bases his argument on
…show more content…
their successes.
To dispel the initial notions of embracing violence, Chavez appeals to his readers emotionally against its dangers.
When he describes the consequences of violence, Chavez uses negatively charged diction, writing, “there will be many injuries and perhaps death on both sides.” By associating violence with morbidity, he presents violence to his readers as a deadly idea. Similarly, he also writes about those who do resort to striking back. He solemnly explains, “When you lose your sense of life and justice, you lose your strength.” Life, justice, and strength are all ideas that have profound, positive connotations for any reader, but when Chavez calls them lost, he communicated the ideas that violence is the antithesis. Through the careful use of diction and ideas, he effectively pits the reader against violence on an emotional
level. However, Chavez also bases his appeal to pathos on a logical argument. In his article, he asks the reader to consider the historical consequences of violence. Then, he claims that those who get killed in a “violent revolution” are the masses of poor that could’ve benefited were they not dead. By presenting this consideration, Chavez bases his appeal on the facts of history. Additionally, Chavez refutes the notion that a cause is worth sacrificing lives for. He argues that people are nonviolent by nature, and those who become violent have become so frustrated that their anger clouds their regard for human life. By arguing those who cry for blood are the result of a simple cause-and-effect, the golden idea of violence is stripped of its golden luster, revealing the cold, dirty anger that drives it. Chavez effectively founds his argument against reasoning and the facts. In his article, Chavez references historical figures, employs charged diction, and reasons logically to create a strong case for nonviolence in the face of those in support for of a riot or revolt.
their successes.
To dispel the initial notions of embracing violence, Chavez appeals to his readers emotionally against its dangers.
When he describes the consequences of violence, Chavez uses negatively charged diction, writing, “there will be many injuries and perhaps death on both sides.” By associating violence with morbidity, he presents violence to his readers as a deadly idea. Similarly, he also writes about those who do resort to striking back. He solemnly explains, “When you lose your sense of life and justice, you lose your strength.” Life, justice, and strength are all ideas that have profound, positive connotations for any reader, but when Chavez calls them lost, he communicated the ideas that violence is the antithesis. Through the careful use of diction and ideas, he effectively pits the reader against violence on an emotional
level. However, Chavez also bases his appeal to pathos on a logical argument. In his article, he asks the reader to consider the historical consequences of violence. Then, he claims that those who get killed in a “violent revolution” are the masses of poor that could’ve benefited were they not dead. By presenting this consideration, Chavez bases his appeal on the facts of history. Additionally, Chavez refutes the notion that a cause is worth sacrificing lives for. He argues that people are nonviolent by nature, and those who become violent have become so frustrated that their anger clouds their regard for human life. By arguing those who cry for blood are the result of a simple cause-and-effect, the golden idea of violence is stripped of its golden luster, revealing the cold, dirty anger that drives it. Chavez effectively founds his argument against reasoning and the facts. In his article, Chavez references historical figures, employs charged diction, and reasons logically to create a strong case for nonviolence in the face of those in support for of a riot or revolt.