Analysis Of He Showed Us The Way By Cesar Chaves

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

dying is very likely to happen and that in a peaceful protest the possibility of that happening is slim to none. So, when protesting never do the protesting with violence but do the protesting as peaceful as possible no matter what happens.
Secondly Cesar Chaves further more develops his statement by stating that in the past peaceful protesting is more successful and a violent protest.

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

protest.
Chavez continues to make contrasts throughout his article. In his concession where nonviolence is a superior tactic above all and states “But if we are committed to nonviolence only as a strategy or tactic, then if it fails our only alternative is to turn to violence” where then Cesar Chavez states “We advocate militant nonviolence…” instead. This is an oxymoron where the word militant refers to war and conflict which Chaves does not agree with. Chavez has argued against violence throughout his entire article. Though Cesar Chaves “militant nonviolence” is not about causing conflict nor harm to peoples property or/and livestock but about showing their way of a peaceful and successful uprising in what is right and what is need to be done.
Cesar Chaves purpose is to say that violence should never be used cause when something is won with violence there will always be strings attached to the victory where as a win with nonviolence there will be no strings attached to the victory.