Maddie Finnegan

Ms. St. John

AP Lang
15 December 2015
Chavez Rhetoric
In an article published on the tenth anniversary of Martin Luther
King Jr.s assassination, Cesar Chavez argues the importance of
nonviolence, as practiced by King, as a means of strengthening a
cause. Chavez calls upon the moral superiority and the organizational
logistics of nonviolence, espousing this form of resistance in order to
create support for his movement. By addressing the readers of a
religious magazine with stirring diction, Chavez creates a sense of
understanding that resonates with his audience.
Chavez speaks to the concerned heart of his readers, touching
upon their just and moral conscience and their yearning for
justice to encourage nonviolence. In mentioning Gods power and
support, Chavez connects to his religious readers, appealing to their
sense of responsibility to their faith. He reasons that with Gods
authority attached to their cause, nonviolence must be the proper and
honorable way to go. He declares that a violent action is the most
vicious type of oppression, revealing how deplorable and
dehumanizing forcefulness is. By leaning on the humane values of
nonviolence, Chavez convinces the reader this way is the only right
path of action if one is to remain religiously and morally acceptable.

In addition to lauding the moral standards of the people, Chavez

points out logistical reasons for nonviolence. Less death and injuries
appeal to the disdain for destruction of human life, and a responsible
approach to a cause gains the support of those who think of
themselves as rational. Chavez refers to the success of Gandhis
movement in India to describe the potential of nonviolent protest and
prove that it is the most reasonable approach to obtain a goal. He also
notes that violence only replaces one violent form of power with
another and that the worst hit in bloody revolutions are always the
poor workers. In a movement for workers rights, violence is now seen
as destructive to the objectives of the people. Because violence
produces consequences that are counterintuitive to goals of a cause,
Chavez calls upon the logistical thinking of his audience to gain
support for nonviolence.
To further create a distinction between these approaches, Chavez
defines the nonviolent method as democratic and power[ful];
violence is explained as a senseless acts of vicious oppression. He
convinces the reader of his cause for nonviolence through his harsh
diction in describing the effects of horrid bloodshed in comparison to
the nearly perfect act of nonaggression. Again, he shames those who
may disagree with him by pairing them with people who espouse
violence [and] exploit people. A reader who valued their own sense of
moral goodness would not wish to be likened to someone who would

disrespect humanity, and thus would be convinced to Chavezs

nonviolent cause.
People suffer from violence. Chavez delivers his message
clearly, and his audience consequently understands that
nonaggression is the only manner of preserving dignity, humanity, and
respect in a movement. Chavezs contrasting reasoning of the
consequences of both approaches, along with his references to moral
and logical thought, bring support to the cause of violence as his
audience is convinced of its necessity.