Remember - these are first drafts and may contain lapses in syntax, however, the analysis is clear.
Please forgive any typos; that would be my bad.
_________________________________________________________________
Chavez’s essay relies on many juxtapositions and contrasts to support his claim of the superiority of nonviolence. The author consistently contrasts the pitfalls of violence with the benefits that nonviolence creates. He argues that while resorting to violence causes “many injuries and perhaps deaths” as well as “total demoralization of the workers” nonviolence “has exactly the opposite effect” allowing Chavez and his followers to “attract people’s support” and “gather the support of millions who have a conscience.” The juxtaposition between violence and nonviolence emphasizes the disparity between the two. It makes the audience realize that they lose from violence and all that they stand to gain from nonviolence. Chavez’s contrast between losing and gaining emphatically daws public support to the latter.
Chavez continues to make contrasts throughout his essays. In response to his concession that viewing nonviolence “only as a strategy or tactic” leads people “to turn to violence” if it fails, Chavez argues for “militant nonviolence” instead. This is an oxymoron - whereas militants are associated with conflict and war, Chavez has argued against this throughout his essay. Chavez’s “militant nonviolence” as he elaborates, is not about conflict - rather it is about movlizing people and protesters to achieve the power of an uprising in a peaceful manner. Chavez’s juxtaposition of military and peacefulness is telling - it allows the author to demonstrate to the audience the power nonviolent movement can have without calling for violence. It evokes feelings of anger, fighting, and change in the audience, but connects it to Chavez’s peaceful process, demonstarating the effectiveness of nonviolent protest. Chavez argues for the effectiveness of nonviolence to the end of his essay; he concludes with a confident statement that nonviolence will prevail us “the rich may have money, but the poor have time.” Chzvez uses the contrast between rich and poor as a positive reminding his audience of their greatest resource - time. The author bolsters his audience in a sort of call to action designed to make them realize their resources in the fight against oppression. By contrasting the rich and poor, Chavez empowers the poor in an uplifting final statement.
Chavez begins his essay recalling the power of nonviolence as demonstrated through Dr. King, and moving on to compare and contrast niolence and non violence. Through very direct sentences he indicates that nonviolence is more powerful than violence. While violence leads to “injuries and perhaps death on both sides total demoralization” non violence is “supportive and crucial.” His contrasting diction from images of deaths and injuries as compared to the wholesomeness of nonviolence helps to convince his listerners about which they would prefer. Likewise his mentioning of violence as being harmful to both sides helps establish an unbiased character and demonstrates how violence is detrimental to anyone, regardless of his position on civil rights. He later moves on to once again directly state contrast, “nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect”. His attachment of words like support, conscinece, and justice to nonviolence has the affect of making it more appealing to the audience and depicting why it is right and effective.
Throughout the passage Chavez uses the plural pronoun “we”. His repetition of “we are convinced” in his article is appealing in that it is very inclusive. It does not alienate his readers. He contrasts the “we” with “those who will see violence as the shortcut to change.” He portrays the “we” as a righteous sympathetic people, ones who struggle “cannot be more important than one human life” and “who are not blind to frustration, impotence, and anger.” By contrasting a compassionate nonviolent people, who are able to comprehend the importance of even one life, to the almost heartless people advocating for violence, the audience is generously included in the side of justice as a foregone conclusion. This use of plural pronouns is in fact an emotional appeal that prompts the audience towards his side of the argument.
Chavez also juxtaposes the violence vs nonviolence contrasting historical allusions to give more credibility to his argument while portraying peaceful protest in a favorable light to gain support. Chavez uses Ghandi, a famous and highly respected advocate of nonviolence, to allude to the success peace can bring since Ghandi managed to win India back from an empire. By directly following that example up with one of a violent movement where poor and helpless people are killed, he portrays the nonviolent movement as highly effective and successful. To further win the support of his readers, Chavez asserts that millions stand behind the cause of nonviolence implying that nonviolence is most successful because they “attract people’s support” as opposed to demoralization and death. By using historical examples and obvious contrasts, Chavez manages to portray peaceful protests in a highly favorable light, encouraging many readers to support his cause - one that seems to be successful, safe, and supported by many.
