In the article, written by Cesar Chavez, an argument of whether people should react with violence or nonviolence is displayed. Chavez argues that violence is never the answer and will eventually lead to more violence. Examples of how to protest peacefully are shown to prove that it is the better solution. Chavez’s sophisticated use of juxtaposition, anecdote, and imagery appeals to the reader by showing them that nonviolence is far more powerful than violence. Chavez juxtaposes acts of violence with nonviolence throughout the article. He shows the reader the impact that nonviolent acts have on the community. By doing so, the audience develops a positive image of the movement and begins to despise violence as a whole. He also shows the terrible acts and results of violent acts. Such as poverty, death, and lack of freedom. This allows the reader to feel sympathy for those who have experienced such traumatic acts of violence and prevent it from happening again. Thus, allows the reader to support the argument and inspire others to do so also. …show more content…
Examples from history are provided to help the reader understand how long acts of violence have been apart of the world.
“Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers.” he states. By providing this, he shows how cases of violence can cause even the lowest classes to result in misfortune. Because of this, the audience is left with an emotional appeal to the ones effected.He also uses Gandhi's solution to fight peacefully, which was the boycott. “The boycott, as Gandhi taught, is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change, allowing masses of people to participate actively in a cause.” he adds. By using a historical figure, the reader feels moved and inspired. As a result, the act of protests and boycotts are looked upon and
appreciated. Chavez displays a visual perception of violent actions is represented in order to convey the reader the outcome of such horrendous acts. “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.” he states. This invokes the audience by showing them the dangerous results of such acts.Which allows them to support the opposition of such a violent idea. Chavez also states, “To call men to arms with many promises, to ask them to give up their lives for a cause and then not produce for them afterwards, is the most vicious type of oppression.” By showing the readers the after effects of violence and the
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.
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
Ferriss, Susan, Ricardo Sandoval, and Diana Hembree. The Fight in the Fields: Cesar Chavez and the Farmworkers Movement. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1997. Print.
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...
In the speech that Cesar chavez presented himself at a mexican american celebration conference talks about of how he sees the church and mexican americans together. Also Chavez was committed to carry out his movement with no violence toward the crowd who doubted him and movement, but others did try violence on them and did not succeed on bring them down. He also had brought this speech towards the public during his 25 days of spiritual fast and had talked about mexican americans and the church and how they are related.Using imagery,metaphors,and repetition, Chavez hoped his speech would bring people together through rough times using the church and their faith to give them hope for a better future.
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.
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.
Cesar Chavez, one man who dramatically changed the world said, “From the depth of need despair, people can work together, can organize themselves to solve their own problems, and fill their own needs with dignity and strength” (ufw.org). This quote means several things. We can’t all make a difference on our own, so we need to work together, as a whole. This also means that we can organize our own problems to figure it out. It also says that we can fill our own wishes with quality and power. Chavez was an important figure in American History because he stood up for what he believed in, and wanted. In some peoples’ view, Chavez will always be a genuine hero.
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
After spending a night in jail for his tax evasion, he became inspired to write “Civil Disobedience.” In this essay, he discusses the importance of detaching one’s self from the State and the power it holds over its people, by refraining from paying taxes and putting money into the government. The idea of allowing one’s self to be arrested in order to withhold one’s own values, rather than blindly following the mandates of the government, has inspired other civil rights activists throughout history, such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. Both these men fought against unjust laws, using non-violent, yet effective, methods of protest.
Chavez opens his article by attempting to get his audience to agree that nonviolence is superior by using and example of an impactful leader. Chavez narrates that "Dr. Kings entire life was an example of power that nonviolence brings" (paragraph 1) Chavez
Cesar Chavez writes an essay to argue that violence is a useless form of getting one's way and instead people should approach things with non violence. To strengthen his argument Chavez uses rhetorical strategies such as name calling and parallel structure. As a result ridiculing the use of violence so anyone who uses it self-classifies as ridiculous. Aswell, using parallel structure to identify all the good that comes from non violence.
The concept of activism is rarely understood by any “normal” citizen. The donation of one’s time towards a certain cause or belief has always been envied by the working class citizen who feels it is important to give back, but is pushed away when those good intentions go bad such as when “non-violent” protests or speeches turn reckless. With an intuition of activists having to be heard through harsh acts, for example the demolition of bridges, billboards or aqueducts, their cause is usually overlooked; their actions are looked down upon as people with internal rage. We must ask ourselves if they are using activism as an excuse to vent out their personal anger. Rather than activists causes being the center of the attention they receive, the ill-mannered way they go about trying to solve problems have become the subjects focus.