Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effectiveness of nonviolence
Cesar Chavez nonviolence analysis
Cesar Chavez nonviolence analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effectiveness of nonviolence
Cesar Chavez in an excerpt from an article published in the magazine of a religious organization asserted that nonviolence is a more effective method of resistance than violence. Chavez supports his assertion by introducing a poignant juxtaposition of violence and peaceful methods, then he employs an effectual allusion to a past peaceful civil rights leader, and finally he presents a compelling logical appeal to the audience about the consequences of violent retaliation. The author’s purpose is to persuade the audience to protest injustice through peaceful methods in order to avoid physical harm and gain public support. The author utilizes an urgent tone for all of society, specifically members of the farm worker’s movement.
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
…show more content…
In Chavez’s article, he explicates that throughout history, violent revolutions have been more harmful for the poor and workers than beneficial. He employs this information in order to force the workers to cognize that violence should not be utilized because it will result in adverse outcomes. Chavez employs logic and history to allow his audience to understand that violence could become fatal for protesters. Chavez hopes to motivate his audience to condemn violent methods. He attempts to enlighten the workers about the futility of utilizing vehement methods as opposed to peaceful
Cesar Chavez set a message a multitude of people support: it was about farm workers' rights. In the 1960s, hard working farmers were paid low salaries and were often mistreated by their leaders. Chavez was one of the many who were brutalized; however, unlike others, he stood up for the workers' rights. All his efforts of eliminating this misery was reflected in his powerful speech "We Shall Overcome".
Before reading or watching the film, I knew little about Cesar Chavez. I only knew that he fought for the rights of farm workers, but had no idea of how he achieved it. I was surprised to learn about some of his innovations that later lead to his success. Especially since some were already used by other strong leaders previously from him. The two innovations that stood out to me the most were the use of nonviolence and boycotting. Both innovations helped Cesar Chavez in achieving fair rights for other farm workers. These innovations are still used and seen today since they have been effective in accomplishing change.
After having read and watched the video about Cesar Chavez’s union, I gained an understanding about his long struggle to gain rights for field workers. But after having attended the event “What I learned about Cesar Chavez” I even gained a better understanding about how Cesar Chavez accomplished what he did. Throughout Grossman's lecture I was able to form several connections to what I learned from the book. Grossman spoke about Cesar Chavez’s determination and ability to inspire others. These characteristics inspired me to fight for what I believe in.
Cesar admired heroes like Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr for their nonviolent methods. He followed Gandhi and Dr. King’s practice of nonviolence for the protest against grapes. Some young male strikers started talking about acts of violence. They wanted to fight back at the owners who have treated them poorly. They wanted to fight back to show that they were tough and manly. Some of the strikers viewed nonviolence as very inactive and even cowardly. However, Cesar did not believe in violence at all. He believed nonviolence showed more manliness than violence and that it supports you if you’re doing it for the right reason. He thought nonviolence made you to be creative and that it lets you keep the offensive, which is important in any contest. Following his role model Ghandi, “Chavez would go on hunger strikes” (Cesar Chavez 2). This showed that he would starve for his cause and that he was very motivated. It also showed that he was a very peaceful and nonviolent protester. Chavez was fasting to rededicate the movement to nonviolence. He fasted for 25 days, drinking only water and eating no food. This act was an act of penitence for those who wanted violence and also a way of taking responsibility as leader of his movement. This fast split up the UFW staff. Some of the people could not understand why Cesar was doing the fast. Others worried for his health and safety. However the farmworkers
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...
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
The best part to learn from in my opinion is the Epilogue where the Chavez speaks to the lives of undocumented immigrants inside the political and social environment that has recently "shadowed" to be stricter on illegal aliens. Chavez brought a clear unbiased look at the simple and often risky life of undocumented migrants, mainly in Southern California area. I also learned more about the term "migrant worker" I knew some things but as I was reading I got more out of the term like it has multiple meanings and interpretations in different places of the world. The general meaning is any person working outside of their home country (which is what I thought it to be.) Some countries have millions of illegal immigrants , most of them being workers. The word can also be used to label someone who drifts within their country just to follow work as well as seasonal work "Farmworkers in northern San Diego are generally employed as seasonal workers" (Chavez pg. 86) which is the common definition in the United States.
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.”
Even though, this is a fictional book, it tells a true story about the struggle of the farm worker to obtain a better life for themselves and their families. There are two main themes in this book, non-violence, and the fight for dignity. Cesar Chavez was a non-violent man who would do anything to not get in a fight while they where boycotting the growers. One, incident in the story was when a grower pulled out a gun, and he pointed it at the strikers, Chavez said, “He has a harder decision to make, we are just standing here in peace…” The picketer were beaten and put in jail before they would fight back and that is what why all farm workers look up to Cesar Chavez , along with his good friend Martin Luther King Jr. Non-Violence is the only way to solve anything. The growers in that time did not care about their workers, if people were striking, the growers would go to Mexico and bring in Braceros, mean that they would not have to sign the union contract and not take union workers, who were willing to work if the grower would sign the contract.
Chavez was greatly supported the idea of equality the he “gained national stature as a labor union spokesman” with all the action he would take not only in his community but others as well. He was such an influential person that the people of the US Senate offered him to” have a testimony during an US Senate subcommittee hearing” . While he is there he lets the people know how these migrant farm workers are being treated and what people are able to do to help. His actions that he took changed US History by letting the people know what and how the migrant workers are treated.
To sum up, Chavez was a man that fought for farmers to be traded better. One of his quotes was “The fight is never about grapes or lettuce. It is always about people”. With this, we can conclude that no matter the kind of strike he had lead, it was always for the people. For example, when he was fighting about the pesticide in grapes or lettuces, the true fight he was leading was always a fight for the people in order to make their lives easier. Maybe his life was not easy as a child working at a young age or maybe it got more complicated as he got older and enter the unions to defend the people that worked on farms, but he got to be a hero among the farmers. More importantly, Chavez got the farmers the momentum they needed in order for them to fight for what they wanted, and in the end, accomplished to get the rights they deserved.
applies the principles of civil disobedience in his procedure of a nonviolent campaign. According to him, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King 262). The first step, which is “collection of the facts,” clarify whether the matter requires civil disobedience from the society (King 262). The second step, “negotiation,” is the step where civil disobedience is practiced in a formal way; to change an unjust law, both sides come to an agreement that respects each other’s demand, (King 262). Should the second step fail, comes the “self-purification,” in which the nonconformists question their willingness to endure the consequences without any retaliation that follow enactment of civil disobedience (King 262). The fourth and the last step, “direct action,” is to execute it; coordinated actions such as protests or strikes to pressure no one, but the inexpedient government to conform to them, and advocate their movement, and thus persuade others to promote the same belief (King 262). This procedure along with principles of civil disobedience is one justifiable campaign that systematically attains its objective. King not only presents, but inspires one of the most peaceful ways to void unjust
One of the greatest civil rights activists of our time; one who believed the ways of Gandhi and Martin Luther King that “violence can only hurt us and our cause” (Cesar Chavez); a quiet, devoted, small catholic man who had nothing just like those he help fight for; “one of America's most influential labor leaders of the late twentieth century” (Griswold del Castillo); and one “who became the most important Mexican-American leader in the history of the United States” (Ender). Cesar Chavez; an American farm worker, who would soon become the labor leader that led to numerous improvements for union workers; it is recorded that Chavez was born near Yuma, Arizona on March 31, 1927 and died on April 23, 1993 in San Luis, Arizona. (Wikipedia) His life affected many others as his unselfish deeds changed the labor union force forever. This essay will discuss the reasons Cesar Chavez became involved in Union rights, the immediate impact he had, and also the legacy he left behind with his actions that influenced American society.
Despite the belief that fighting with violence is effective, civil disobedience has been tried throughout history and been successful. Fighting violence with violence leaves no oppertunity for peace to work. By refusing to fight back violently, Martin Luther King Jr. took a race of people, taught them the value of their voice, and they earned the right to vote. Henry David Thoreau presented his doctrine that no man should cooperate with laws that are unjust, but, he must be willing to accept the punishment society sets for breaking those laws, and hundreds of years later, people are still inspired by his words. Mohandas K. Gandhi lead an entire country to its freedom, using only his morals and faith to guide him, as well as those who followed him, proving that one man can make a difference. Civil disobedience is the single tool that any person can use to fight for what they want, and they will be heard. After centuries of questioning it, it appears that the pen truly is mightier than the sword.
Hugo Chavez's political discourse based on the Marxist thoughts soon was creating "The Bolivarian Revolution", and since its beginning offered the XXI century socialism, which one was never described specifically to people. As a result, with the passing of the years Chavez created an atmosphere of division, violence and unrest within the population. Thus, Created a marked difference between the supporters and opponents of his policies, a situation that President Hugo Chavez took in advantages for his own purposes, deploy a communist regime disguised as a socialist. In other words, Chavez tricked Venezuela’s people, offering the establishment of a socialism that was nothing more than a dictatorship adapted to their own purposes, become the most recognized leader of the left in worldwide.