Does violence actually ever accomplish anything? Some people seem to think that it does. Cesar Chavez on the other hand, disagrees. In an article that Chavez wrote for a magazine and made some excellent points and arguments about why nonviolence is so much more effective as opposed to violence. He covers topics such as morality, or lack thereof, shown by violence and nonviolence, as well as honor. Chavez’s rhetorical choices made in favor of his argument seems to have a lasting effect as people today still resort to nonviolent acts of resistance against their government. The first argument made by Cesar was with concern over morality. He believed that nonviolent actions had the ability to show the people you’re opposing that you still have a both just and moral cause. Chavez said that “If we resort to violence, then one of two things will happen: either the violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps death on both sides. Or there will be the total demoralization of the workers” (prompt) To paraphrase, Violence seldom does any good for either side of the dispute in question. Violence generally does not attract followers according …show more content…
Chavez said “Thus, demonstrations and marches, strikes and boycotts are not only weapons against the growers, but our way of avoiding senseless violence that brings no honor to any class or community. The boycott, as Gandhi taught, is the most nearly perfect instruments of nonviolent change, allowing masses of people to participate actively in a cause.” (prompt) One interesting point he made was about honor. Cesar believed that violent acts during a time of resistance were senseless and brought no honor upon any one person involved in the aforementioned acts, and that they could be avoided by participating in nonviolent means such as boycotting, marches, and
Cesar Chavez brought people together for a common good which enabled the people. To rely on nonviolent protest with so much faith in his people said a lot of the bravery that Chavez had. Also, according to book written by Bruns, Rogers (2013), Cesar Chavez help sign approximately 1000 families into unions and programs that were designed to reach out to those who needed legal help in matters of immigration counseling and voting registration. By increasing the number of legal Hispanic residents and citizen and by encouraging many others to vote it would increase the probabilities of being heard by political candidates whom could work towards winning their vote by recognizing their problems and by taking legal action to change the
Chavez also uses imagery throughout his work to paint a picture in the audience's head of how non – violence is more effective than violent methods of persuasion. Chavez quotes, " There will be many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides." By saying this he helps the audience create a frame of mind that violence is not the answer and individuals don’t want to witness other people suffer due to this destructive manner of
which deserves respect and honor. Cesar Chavez changed and helped farm workers get better wages and working conditions. According to the source BB, I saw that the farm workers were all drinking from the same cup. This was very unsanitary and each should have their own cup to drink out of.
Aside from eventually giving a detailed explanation as to why nonviolence is more productive than violence, Cesar Chavez begins with definitive proof that it is more productive by mentioning a well- known, nonviolent activist, Martin Luther King, in his opening paragraph. By using Dr. King in his opening paragraph, Chavez sets up his whole article in a way that not only explains why nonviolence is better, but first uses a real example of when nonviolence functioned better than violence. In addition to this, Chavez is able to engage his audience and explain why nonviolence is always the best decision through the use of uncomplicated diction, sentence structure, and appealing to his audience’s religious beliefs. Chavez hits ground running after his opening paragraph about Dr. King, and his very first stride is appealing to his audience by the religious belief that violence is never acceptable, no matter how just the cause is. Chavez says, “...human life is a very special possession given by God… that no one has the right to take it for any reason…”
¨ if it is temporarily successful, it replaces one violent form of power with another just as violent.¨ (lines 74-77) No matter how or where, Chavez will always resort to nonviolence as a means to oppress and protest, even if it will not benefit him in any
Chavez makes the reader feel emotion for what has or could possibly happen by talking about the consequences. He states that a violent victory is one that comes with death, suffering, and destruction. Even when it is won there are still continuous consequences. He makes a point at the end of the article, “Violence does not work in the long run and if it is temporarily successful, it replaces one violent form of power with another just as violent. People suffer from violence.”
Cesar mentioned that, “If we resort to violence…the violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides, or there will be total demoralization of the workers” (Garcia, 77). He created this idea that violence does not solve anything, and will only create bigger problems. However, a nonviolent movement is a protest
The civil rights movement was a strong topic of discussion in politics during the mid-twentieth century. Martin Luther King Jr., one of the most influential leaders of the civil rights movement, was assassinated which caused many protests and calls for violence. In Cesar Chavez’s speech, he is telling the people that nonviolence resistance is the best way to go about the situation. Chavez’s uses juxtaposition, diction, and rhetorical appeals to strongly convey his argument about nonviolent resistance. To begin with, Chavez uses juxtaposition to contrast the effects of violent and nonviolent resistance.
When the world is engulfed in injustice, it calls for brave men and women to fight back, but the question is how should one fight? Most would resort to violence to kill off injustice, but this leads to even more violence and chaos in most cases than intended. If someone is going to be shot the first reaction is to fight off the killer. However, Cesar Chavez implies in his powerful essay the weakness of violence in a unjust situation and instead the power of nonviolence.
In the first paragraph Chavez mentions Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, stating that Dr. King’s “entire life was an example of power that nonviolence brings…” This reference to Dr. King causes those who know of his impact to realize that he lead a strong historical example of what nonviolence could achieve. By using Dr. King as an example it indicates that Chavez thinks that if nonviolence had heavily impacted the past, then it would most likely do the same in the present and future. Chavez also makes a reference to Gandhi and his nonviolent boycott in India, claiming that what he taught “is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change.” By using the word perfect to describe Gandhi’s teachings of nonviolence, it further supports Chavez’s stance for nonviolent resistance.
The assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. devastated a large majority of people around the world. His works of nonviolent acts against racism motivated many, including civil rights activist Cesar Chavez, to solve matters without resorting to inhumane behaviors. Inspired by Dr. King Jr.’s work, Chavez and his union of labor workers devoted themselves to helping those in need through peaceful protests. Similar methods are proven to be successful; Mahatma Gandhi, for instance, gained a great deal of supporters because of his pacifism and tranquil methods of boycotting against British domination. Despite brutal and savage methods of persuasion slowly gaining support, Chavez proves that nonviolent actions are superior; he does so by using ethos in order to uphold moral standards, logos (in reference to the past), and pathos to appeal to the emotions of his audience.
One of Chavez’s most well-known protests is the Delano Grape Strike. Chavez is well known for this individual strike because he was specifically asked from the Filipinos, who were the peoples that were affected so they started the strike because of bad pay (90 cents an hour) and horrible working conditions. Cesar accepted the invitation from the Filipinos because he felt as though this strike could have been helpful towards his protesting causes. This strike focused on the pay, working conditions, and the land owner’s violent actions towards the farm workers. Cesar new the fight for these rights was not going to end anytime soon.
What made Cesar Chavez an Effective leader? Cesar Chavez was born in Yuma,Arizona in 1927. He moved a lot and went to 36 different schools. He lived through the Great Depression and worked in fruit and vegetable fields as a farmer. On a regular basis California farmers would face mistreatment and abuse mainly by the growers taking advantage of them all.
In addition, referencing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the text further established Cesar Chavez’s ethos. King was someone who was revered by proponents of civil rights. Associating an audience with a prominent figure such as Dr. King adds to the credibility in the rhetor. Chavez uses the main persona of a human
Cesar Chavez wrote a piece in the magazine of religious organization on the ten year anniversary of Martin Luther King. He starts off saying that Dr. King was a very powerful man with nonviolent means. Throughout his writing he gives many example of why nonviolence will ultimately succeed over violent means, and give of many appeals of emotional, logical, creditable justification. Dr. King may have dies, but with his death only more power has come to the peaceful citizens of the world.