Nonviolent Resistance Cesar Chavez Summary

In the article, published on the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez invokes the ideas of Dr. King and advocates for nonviolent resistance. Utilizing a determined tone throughout, he asserts that nonviolence will accomplish the goals of civil rights activists. By using contrasting diction to distinguish nonviolent action and violent action, he is able to reason for nonviolent virtues. With the use of rhetorical strategies, Chavez is able to drive his argument for nonviolent resistance.

Chavez begins by recalling the power of nonviolence as demonstrated by Dr. King, who lived and taught essential ingredients for active nonviolence until the day he died. By alluding to Dr. King, Chavez is able

Chavez uses the plural “we” along with his phrase like “we are convinced”, creating appeal in that it is very inclusive. Avoiding the alienation of his audience, he includes himself which makes the issue of violence versus nonviolence his problem as well. He continues his ideas on nonviolence not only by alluding to Gandhi, but also by using rhetorical questions. His allusions to the teachings of Dr. King and Gandhi's work accomplish historical proof that nonviolence is powerful and effective. Likewise, he pairs this with a logical appeal by using, again, direct sentences that are short yet powerful in meaning. Chavez says “people suffer from violence. Examine history.” He again calls on history to make a logical argument on why nonviolent resistance is most successful. By using these short and abrupt sentences he catches attention, showing his passion toward the idea of nonviolence. Chavez ends with a rhetorical question: “who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” In an hypophora, he answers “the poor, the worker, the people do,” calling out the loss of violence. He says the everyday people and sometimes bystanders get affected, pointing out that no one wins is violent actions, there is only loss. Chavez successfully argues a very effective argument for nonviolent resistance through multiple uses of rhetorical devices. Through his powerful use of short,