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…
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
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