Non-violent activist, Cesar Chavez, in his article, published in the magazine of a religious organization, he discusses the effects of nonviolent and violent protest. Cesar Chavez purpose was to persuade his readers that nonviolent protest will always have the better outcome than violent. Cesar uses a authoritative effusive tone throughout his article in order to lead his readers to fully believe that nonviolent protest will be more pure and stronger solution.
For example, Cesar Chavez structures his article in a compare and contrast format. Cesar Chavez points out that using nonviolence you are on the “offensive” side and the people who choose to use violence tend to be defensive(Chavez 15). Chavez utilizes the differences between nonviolent and violent protest to present how different morally those people are. People who fight nonviolently attract supporters who are conscience of their behaviors and people who yearn for justice. Cesar Chavez’s use of contrasting why people choose to fight violent or nonviolent helps the reader understand the righteousness of the people on the nonviolent side. He describes the supporters of a nonviolent approach to be people who have long endured cruel and unfair treatment or people who sympathize for
…show more content…
those people. Supporters that use nonviolence are just trying to solve the problem and have equal treatment for everyone, while the people who disagree use violence because they feel attacked personally and the problems that are solved with violence are never fully successful. Also, Cesar Chavez’s uses diction in his article to describe the goal of nonviolent supporters.
Nonviolent protesters goal is for everyone to receive true “justice” no matter what race, color, religion, if you’re rich or poor; that everyone will be equal (31). Cesar develops his argument about nonviolent resistance by using “Justice” as a powerful word in the nonviolent fight. The people who don’t use violence; their victories are when people receive equal treatment. He develops his argument by describing what the people want. Nonviolent supporters are the key reason why nonviolence is the only true answer to solving a problem because, the supporters are sympathetic people who understand the problems others
face. Cesar chavez usefulness of ethos in his article helped him capitalize in his argument about nonviolent resistance. Chavez purpose of acknowledging “Dr. King” and “Gandhi” in his article was to establish further credibility (1 & 62). By mentioning that Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi; people whom made a significant difference in the world around us today used nonviolence to reach their goal. This helps develop Cesar argument that nonviolence is the only way to make a true, significant, long last solution to the problems people face today. To conclude, Cesar Chavez uses text structure, diction and ethos to develop his argument that nonviolent resistance is the only way to make a long lasting helpful change in the world.
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".
Utilizing paradox, Chavez describes the effectiveness of nonviolent protest to his audience. Recalling the achievements of MLK, Chavez claims that King “learned how to successfully fight hatred and violence with the unstoppable power of nonviolence.” This quote demonstrates
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
By alluding to Dr. King, Chavez is able to show that nonviolent actions are possible and have been shown to flourish. Chavez uses the plural “we” along with his phrase “we are convinced”, creating appeal in that it is very inclusive. Avoiding the alienation of his audience, he includes himself, which makes the issue of violence versus nonviolence his problem as well. He continues his ideas on nonviolence not only by alluding to Gandhi, but also by using rhetorical questions.
King consents that negations are an impressive approach but elaborates of their current unavailability since the matter is merely ignored. Due to this, King argues that the nonviolent actions purpose “to create a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront this issues” (King). Here, King is consenting to the audience’s opinion of negotiating as well as adding the real issue’s facts so as to justify the reasons for doing it in his own manner. The audience can be made to reason and agree that his deeds are the most appropriate approach through supporting his decision by arguing that the community denies paying attention to the cause and non-violent protest has a huge
Cesar Chavez was a Hispanic migrant worker who fought for the rights of other migrant farm workers. His strategy for fighting inequality was through nonviolent strikes, boycotts, and marches. In this interview of him by a Christian magazine, Chavez uses logical and religious appeals, and allusions to justify his usage of nonviolent resistance in order to gain civil rights.
Chavez uses multiple rhetorical strategies to bring forth the ideal that nonviolence and achieves his purpose by show his involvement and compassion in nonviolence. He delivers strong arguments to gain the support of his followers and achieves his purpose of bringing attention to and gaining the support of nonviolence.Today Cesar Chavez leaves a legacy as one of the prime examples of a nonviolent protester and is known for founding president
In Cesar Chavez’s article, he uses many rhetorical devices to help give the reader a better understanding of how important nonviolence vs violence is. Chavez explains how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi have endowed reasons of nonviolence worth following.
“All machines have their friction―and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil… But when the friction comes to have its machine… I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (Thoreau 8). In Henry David Thoreau’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the author compares government to a machine, and its friction to inequity. He believes that when injustice overcomes a nation, it is time for that nation’s government to end. Thoreau is ashamed of his government, and says that civil disobedience can fight the system that is bringing his country down. Alas, his philosophy is defective: he does not identify the benefits of organized government, and fails to recognize the danger of a country without it. When looked into, Thoreau’s contempt for the government does not justify his argument against organized democracy.
In Hector Tobar’s The Tattooed Soldier, Antonio migrated from Guatemala saw Longoria in the L.A. who killed Elena and Carlitos, who are Antonio’s spouse and son. People lived in Los Angles were frustrated with the government and power system at the time. Consequently, Antonio got revenge against Longoria for Antonio’s family, others who were murdered by Longoria in Guatemala, and his justice. Justice is based on an absolute human right: the right to life, and whatever violates that right is unjust. If the power system is allowed to violate vulnerable people, the weak have a choice to use violence to attempt to reveal the responsibility of those who abused power. However, seeking violent revenge is also unjust because it violates the right to life. Nonviolent resistance can be further power to save the victims without contravening the right to life.
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
A key argument expressed within “A Force More Powerful” is that non-violent protest is an effective method to motivate social and political change. The documentary provides three case studies as historical instances where non-violent protest met high levels of success. A main purpose of the filmmakers is to investigate the non-violent aspects of popular uprisings that had been previously underestimated in terms of their contribution to a larger conflict. The instances taken as case studies are all of groups marginalised due to racial, colonial, and economic reasons. The histories of the conflicts from which arise the case studies are given only briefly, with a focus upon the groups shown to be oppressed by their respective states and governmental institutions.
The first being his extensive use of past and current historical undertakings of both violent and nonviolent revolutions. This is noteworthy because it does not hinder his argument, but instead gives it validation. Although a degree of bias in choosing events to mention was certainly involved, showing and directly comparing both types of responses highlights the benefits of the nonviolent course. By utilizing numerous historical events Wink forces people to consider nonviolence as a legitimate option. Violence is widely expressed in movies, literature, television, video games, etc. due to the intense emotions and consequences it induces. Yet, through his recantation of nonviolent occurrences Wink reveals the powerful emotions of nonviolence that are overlooked in society. This is an important feature of Wink’s argument, this is where he successfully overcomes the stereotypes and misunderstandings of nonviolence by illuminating the powerful characteristics of nonviolent acts. Uncovering the truth on nonviolence and attributing its use to prominent figures such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were both beneficial to sustaining Wink’s
ur world has many ways of solving problems. For example countries write up constitutions and declarations in order to become independent. We write treaties to keep peace and to make allies. Everything we do has a solution yet all of these things stated above take the lives of millions of people, through war. In this paper we will talk about the three virtues that promote non-violence and the three people who became successful using these tactics. Non-violent protests worked because these leaders and their inspired followers were willing to bring attention to their cause by breaking the law, maintaining disciplining the face of violence, and accepting jail time for their acts of civil disobedience.