After the assassination of Martin Luther King, many people wanted to retaliate violently because of this misfortune. Cesar Chavez is trying to persuade people to help them understand that the only way to achieve meaningful and impactful change is through nonviolent action. His use of juxtaposition and antithesis with MLK's core beliefs to persuade his readers to have no doubt about the impact of nonviolent actions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Chavez juxtaposes the nonviolent moment with historical allusions to lend credibility to his argument in which he describes peaceful protests as having more impact than violent actions. Chavez is using Ghani, who is a well-respected advocate of non-violence, to escape the impact he must have achieved by protesting Indian laws again. By using this example and then affirming a violent movement in which poor people were killed, he makes his audience understand that the nonviolent movement is successful and effective. Furthermore, to further drive home the point to his audience, Chavez describes that many people champion the cause of nonviolence, implying that nonviolence is more successful because it "attracts people's support" rather than “totally demoralize them”. Using these historical examples and juxtaposing the effects of non-violent and violent protests shows that peaceful protests are more effective, encouraging many readers to his cause which is supported by many. Chávez at the beginning of his essay, because he directly links the words "non-violence" to "power." This once again proves his assertion that “non-violence offers the possibility of staying on the offensive.” This implies to his audience that nonviolence is initially linked to power, and to further persuade his audience he says that he is truly "committed to nonviolence only as a goal." tactic… otherwise it fails, our only alternative is to turn to violence. » This gives its audience no other option to agree with nonviolent protest. Chavez also directly contrasts terms such as "no honor" with "a vicious type of oppression" to persuade his audience that violence is atrocious, but nonviolence is more honorable and reflects " the American people.” However, Chavez mentions possible counterarguments. like when he said that "we are not blind to feelings of frustration", he refuted and emphasized his argument that "non-violence sustains you if you have a just and moral cause". Chavez uses antithesis to demonstrate the good of nonviolence and the evil of nonviolence. , which further leads them to further support his cause. In conclusion, Chávez uses antithesis and juxtaposition to persuade that his cases of nonviolence are more favorable and more successful, and also to make his audience understand that nonviolence is the only effective way to achieve change..