More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of a non-violent protest
Violent protest in the civil rights movement
Violent protest vs nonviolent protest
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of a non-violent protest
A Civil Rights leader and a member of a religious organization, Cesar Chaves in his article “He Showed Us the Way” (1978) suggest that the correct way to protest is through a non-violent protest than a violent one, because many people would rather see a problem be solved without violence than with violence. Causing mayhem to property or/and livestock is defying the message that he is trying to put out to the world, also why would someone join a protest if the protesters are just harming or destroying innocent people’s property or/and livestock. Cesar Chaves first supports his claims by first utilizing anaphora in order to create a sense of unity in a devesting time of unsafe working conditions for migrant workers. More specifically, Cesar Chaves argues that no human should ever use violence in any form of action or way because violence can cause acts that one might wish to take those acts back, but cannot. He writes “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 deaths on both sides…(while) Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect”. In this passage Cesar Chaves suggests that while in violent protest the possibility of someone getting injured or …show more content…
He states “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers (the protesters). The people of the land are the ones who give their bodies and don’t really gain that much for it. We believe it is too big a price to pay for not getting anything.” In this passage Cesar Chaves states that a violent protest only hurts the protesters and not who they are protesting against. Why would we go into a violent protest to only lose all of the supporters and get our own people injured or even dead and to have an even less of a chance to win the
Barr. Cesar Chavez put a quote about Martin Luther King Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which give the message to the reader that Cesar Chavez had no intentions of having a rebellion but to just exposed of the injustice that it was given to the immigrant workers because by exposing those inequalities to the union is when it can be cured since it was done before. It also tries to explain to the reader that they will not give up on getting equal right for the people because Cesar Chavez stated that “They have been under the gun, they have been kicked and beaten and herded by dogs” this shows to the audience that the people of Cesar Chavez will not give up even if there are gun pointed into their heads. It also stated into the “Letter of Delano” that “Time accomplishes for the poor what money does for the rich” what this is trying to say and what it is trying to reach for the audience is that even if the immigrants are poor and they can’t afford not to work they are willing to do it because with that time they were getting prepared, prepared for what it was coming in the nest years to come they had a
One of many reasons that Cesar Chavez fought for equality was “Because farm workers were often unseen or ignored, he would make them visible—to place them in the public’s attention and keep them there” . He already knew how life was when he was a farm worker, so he knew he had to do anything to get the publics attention. When he had that he would again do his best to keep them there. This was one fight that he didn’t want to lose, since he understood how hard it is being a farm worker.
Chávez’s leadership was based on an unshakable commitment to nonviolence, personal sacrifice and a strict work ethic. He emphasized the necessity of adhering to nonviolence, even when faced with violence from employers and growers, because he knew if the strikers used violence to further their goals, the growers and police would not hesitate to respond with even greater vehemence. Despite his commitment to nonviolence, many of the movement’s ‘enemies’, so to speak, made efforts to paint the mo...
I have read two articles, in which they both talk about the same topic. They both talk about dogs and leadership. “Cesar's Way” is an article written by Cesar Millan, he is a well-known dog training expert, in his article he mainly talks about the proper training for dogs and their background. The second article that I read was “Pack of Lies” and it’s written by Mark Derr from The New York Times. Mark Derr has written two books about dogs. Mark Derr’s article mainly criticises the way that Cesar Millan trains his dogs. He believes that Caesar Millan's methods of training dogs can overwhelm them. I have read both articles and I personally believe that Cesar’s article ,“Cesar’s Way”, is more informing and persuasive about the topic. I believe this because Cesar clearly explains how packs work, how to identify a leader and a follower, and how anybody can lead a dog.
Ideally, their sympathy would drive more people to support the nonviolent movement because the victims fight against injustice by nonviolent means. In addition, Hector Tobar described Longoria knowing that “the enemy deals in ideology. Ideology is one of his most effective weapons, perhaps the most effective” (Tobar 220). It shows that suppressive governments are more afraid of their citizens ideological resistance than violent rebellion.
Cesar Chavez explains the effect of violent protests by stating, “ Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause. Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and that is of crucial importance to win any contest. 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 deaths on both sides, or there will be total demoralization of the workers.” Cesar believes that using violence is the immoral thing to do, that can result in accidents. Not using violence will always help you have a stronger message than using violence will. By addressing morals his readers will have a closer understanding about what he is saying. The activist shows how violence is immoral by stating, “ If we beat the growers at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death. Such a thing would have a tremendous impact on us. We would lose regard for human beings. Then the struggle would become a mechanical thing. When you lose your sense of life and justice, you lose your strength.” Cesar Chavez explains that using violence to injury people is an immoral way to act and it will not help your cause. The idea of injuring is not a moral way to protest and Chavez uses this argument to appeal to his religious
Chavez also states that non violence lets you “stay on the offensive” which also exemplifies the significance of a nonviolent movement. He also is morally appealing to his religious audience by discussing those who are “truly concerned” about a movement, will stick to nonviolence and not turn to the side of violence. This then forces the audience to feel relation to the good people, as they view themselves as a good person, and thusly side with nonviolence. He also uses powerful word choices to exemplify the superiority of nonviolence that connect with his American audience such as “democracy” and “freedom.” He then contrasts this with the “most vicious type of oppression,” violence. Chavez wants the working farmers to unite and protest, yet he wants them to do it peacefully, yet he is aware that “we are not blind to feelings of frustration,” and how they must search and achieve “balance” to achieve their goals. His powerful descriptions of nonviolence as a “nearly perfect instrument” contrasted with “those who espouse violence exploit people,” strengthens the support gained from the reader by the moral guilt of violence. Chavez’s compelling and forceful diction further provokes the reader and illuminates the upside of nonviolence and the harsh consequences and cons of violence, which increases the motivation to join the working farmers movement and unify behind a nonviolent
Last but not least, Chavez uses an oxymoron in line 45. He says, “We advocate militant nonviolence as our means of achieving justice for our people, but we are not blind to the feelings of frustration, impatience and anger which seeth inside every worker.” In the sentence provided, he also uses a strong word choice and personification to give you a mental picture of the madness that laces every worker’s insides. Cesar Chavez once said, “In some cases nonviolence requires more militancy than violence.”
According to Morris Liebman, author of “Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Society Under Law,” “Never in the history of mankind have so many lived so freely, so rightfully, so humanely. This open democratic republic is man’s highest achievement—not only for what it has already accomplished, but more importantly because it affords the greatest opportunity for orderly change and the realization of man’s self-renewing aspirations.” What Liebman fails to realize is that while the United States of America has made improvements, the United States still has a far way to go before it can be considered a fair country. Liebman also states that “The plain fact of human nature is that the organized disobedience of masses stirs up the primitive. This has been true of a soccer crowd and a lynch mob. Psychologically and psychiatrically it is very clear that no man—no matter how well-intentioned—can keep group passions in control.” While disagreeing with the first example from Liebman, it would be difficult to disregard the way that many protests seem to spiral out of control. Peaceful protest for the most part remain peaceful, however some may turn violent very quickly. Liebman also believes that there is no such thing as “righteous civil disobedience” as men and women are deliberately disregarding laws set in place to protect the country, and regards it as deplorable and destructive(Liebman). To combat Liebman, a new age of civil disobedience is rolling in, a more inclusive type. With various social media platforms, word of walkouts and peaceful, with an emphasis on peaceful, protests are spread more quickly. These student led activist groups are popping up more quickly and are not lacking in passion. Many students of today are tired of being told their too young and inexperienced to be taking
First of all, Chavez emphasizes the power of nonviolence by directly contrasting it to violence through the use of a juxtaposition. In Chavez’s piece, he insinuates that violence leads to death and the demoralization of protesters, while nonviolence will attract people’s support. Chavez presents this contrast in order to illuminate the workers and allow them to understand the benefits of searching for a nonviolent resolution. Chavez intends to lead a powerful and peaceful movement. He exemplifies that nonviolence will allow the
By comparing the two through very direct sentences, he indicates that nonviolence is more powerful than violence while violence leads to “many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides or there will be total demoralization” (lines 19-21), nonviolence is “supportive and crucial.” Using contrasting diction and connecting violence to images of death and demoralization as well as explaining how it will affect both sides, demonstrates how violence is harmful to everyone. Then by highlighting the power as well as the morality of nonviolence, by using bold statements such as “support” “justice” and “powerful” appeals the the audience and further influences them to advocate and support nonviolence as well as view it as superior to violence due to the powerful diction Chavez used to bring attention to the values of
If a person want a peaceful protest, then sit at home and use social media to protest and wait for change. However, violent protest raises awareness and get the issue resolved much quicker than just holding hands and chanting. Violent Protest shows the anger and frustration of the person or people. It also shows how people are willing to risk their life by standing by something they believe in. When violence is used during a protest it gets the point across much quicker. Violence cannot be ignored and it forces the authorities or whomever to take notice.
By using these short and abrupt sentences he catches attention, showing his passion toward the idea of nonviolence. Chavez ends with a rhetorical question: “who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” In a hypophore, he answers “the poor, the workers, the people,” calling out the loss of violence. He says the everyday people and sometimes bystanders get affected, pointing out that no one wins is violent, there is only loss. Chavez successfully argues a very effective argument for nonviolent resistance through multiple uses of rhetorical devices.
While using violence to counteract violence may seem like a contradiction of sorts it is possibly the only recourse for the oppressed. It is impossible to create a formula of what works and doesn’t work in terms of emancipation because it is highly dependent on the particular situation but it is quite apparent that counterviolence is a necessary tool in this struggle. As we have seen, violence is not the only tool in liberation; the reconstruction of human ethics and perceptions is as, or more, important. Furthermore, it has been shown that sometimes nonviolence can create systemic change and that violence is not always applicable. Other times, violence is the only means to achieve true human emancipation.
I am a pacifist; I do not believe in nor promote violence. I do, however, promote peaceful protest. The act of civil disobedience, of protesting something that is unjust, unconstitutional is well within our constitutional rights. The right to criticize our government is one that was given, that was fought for by our founding fathers. It is an act that affects our society in a very positive way; peaceful resistance encourages others to criticize a cruel and unfair government. Peaceful protests, strikes, and boycotts have the opportunity to gain the government's attention, to try and stop these so-called "anarchists". When we look back at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we see a hero. We see someone who is intelligent, who is not afraid to argue,