After Martin Luther King’s assassination, there were many people who wanted to fight back violently due to this misfortune. Cesar Chavez tries to persuade the people to help them to see that the only way to get meaningful and impactful change is through nonviolent actions.
His use of juxtaposition and antithesis to the fundamental beliefs of MLK to persuade his readers to have no doubt of how impactful non violence actions are.Chavez juxtaposes the non-violent moment with historical allusions to give makes his argument credibility in which portray that peaceful protest is more impactful that a violent actions. Chavez uses Ghani, who is a highly respected advocate of nonviolence, to elude the impact he had manage to gain from protesting again India’s laws. By using this example and then asserting a violent movement in which poor people were killed he he conveys his audience that the nonviolent movement as successful and effective. Furthermore, to get conveys his audience more Chavez portray that many people stand for the cause of non-violence, which implies that nonviolence is more successful because it ” attracts people support” rather than “total demoralization” of people. By using these historical examples and juxtaposing the effects of nonviolent and violent protest portrays that peaceful protests are more successful,in which encourage many readers to his cause which is supported by many.
Chavez at the start of his essay, because directly tying the words ” non-violence” to “power”. This further proves his claim that ” nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive..” This gives conveys his audience that nonviolence is initially connected with power and to further persuade his audience he says that they are truly ” committed to nonviolence only as a tactic..than it fails our only alternative is to turn to violence.
“This gives his audience no other option to agree with nonviolence protest. Chavez also directly contrast terms such as “no honor” to “vicious type of oppressions” to persuade his audience that violence is a atrocious thong however nonviolence is more honorable and it reflects “the american people.” However chavez mentions possible counter arguments such as when he says that ” we are not blind to feelings of frustration” he rebutts and emphasize his argument that “Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause.”Chavez uses of antithesis demonstrates the good of nonviolence and bad’s for nonviolence , which furthermore is making them supporting his cause more.In conclusion, chavez uses antithesis and juxtaposition to persuade his non-violence cases are more favorable and successful, and also to appeal to his audience that nonviolence is the only impactful way to achieving change.