Cesar Chavez Farm Workers Movement Summary

Cesar Chavez was an activist for the farm workers movement and had an article published in the magazine of a religious organization on nonviolence on the tenth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination in the 60’s at the height of the civil rights movement. Many people wanted to turn to violence but Chavez leads them away from that course through his uses of the causes and effects of violence and nonviolence with the appeal to historical events, compelling diction, and his appeals to basic moral beliefs of his reader to achieve his overall purpose of calling the farm workers to unify and to gain direction to stand up to the manipulative rich.

Chavez juxtaposes the violent and nonviolent movements to portray the nonviolent movement positively with historical allusions included throughout the comparison. Chavez uses the example of Gandhi, a well respected and and well known nonviolent activist, to depict how nonviolence is successful as Gandhi regained India from an oppressive empire using nonviolent tactics. Chavez then, in the very next paragraph, describes the horrors of violence, and how a victory through violence is a “victory with strings attached,” to further exemplify the negative impacts violence has. Those strings are often tied to the top, that being the rich, who are further able to puppet the working class. Chavez continues to devalue violence, as he exemplifies his growing support from working farmers by expressing how it’s “the poor, the workers” who die in violent movements. Finally, Chavez advocates for nonviolence once more by stating the millions and millions that support the nonviolent movement, and how it continues to “attract people’s support,” as opposed to violence which pushes people away because of death. Chavez uses contrasts between violence and nonviolence to illustrate the beneficiality of nonviolence to gain support from his readers, as well as historical examples to exemplify the power of an organized, free, nonviolent movement.
Chavez, in the first line of his article, connects “nonviolence” to “power” which immediately draws the reader’s focus towards the importance of nonviolent movements.

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

movement.
Chavez also appeals to the morals of his very targeted audience to convince them and gain their support. Chavez uses the reference to God and religion to appeal to his religious readers. He is targeting his deeply religious audience and by calling to God, he in ensuring their support by exclaiming that life is not to be taken by man. He also uses his call to religion and humanity by portraying violence as something that exploits “the poor, the workers,” and by doing so he is forcing his audience to choose between exploitation and nonviolence, which is a clear decision for his religious audience. The morality of his audience will keep them from committing the “most vicious type of oppression.” He also uses the sadness and guilt associated with death and mass injury associated with violence the to keep his religious followers from “los[ing] all regard for human beings.” By depicting violence as exploitation of the poor and inhumane, he is persuading those religious readers that nonviolence is the most humane, moral, and “nearly perfect instrument” to bring change.
Chavez uses causes and effects of violence and nonviolence with historical allusions, powerful diction, and strong moral appeals to persuade the readers toward nonviolence and to unify as a working farmers union and protest against the manipulative and oppressive rich nonviolently.