Analysis Of Nonviolence Resistance By Cesar Chavez

In his first large protest, Cesar went on a long march. When reflecting upon the march Chavez remarked that, “We marched alone at the beginning, but today, we count men of all creeds, nationalities, and occupations in number.” (Chavez, 2) From the very beginning, Chavez brought groups of people together by uniting his small group of protesters with a group of Filipino strikers to create the United Farm Workers. Uniting his group of protesters with the group of striking Filipino workers allowed the protest to become bigger, and therefore more successful. The large numbers also attracted more attention from the media. By uniting groups of strikers, Chavez created a strong protest organization that lasts even today. Another essential group of people Chavez got to join his cause were the consumers. Chavez and his partner Dolores Huerta once wrote, “We called upon our fellow men, and were answered by consumers.” (Chavez, Huerta, 1) Consumers helped the protest by participating in a grape boycott, and did not buy grapes until the grape workers’ needs were met. With this boycott, Chavez tried to weaken the business of the grape growers until they complied, and it worked. When thousands of citizens would not by grapes, the media covered the issue. Through the media coverage, the boycott spread rapidly, uniting people from all over the United States. With the popularity of the boycott, the protest evolved into not just a protest, but a civil rights

One reason Cesar Chavez was an effective leader was because he created a union known as the United Farm Workers. Chavez’s goal was to organize the farmers to receive better pay and better working conditions. He was not the first to attempt, others have tried but failed due to the power of growers. He was different, he gained support through encouragement. His exact words were “si se puede”(Doc A) meaning “it can be done”. He encouraged his supporters to seek their rights as farmers. “ The strongest act of manliness, is to sacrifice ourselves for other in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice”(Doc C). Chavez along

Cesar Chavez addresses a speech that marks history known as the “Wrath of the Grapes Boycott, 1986” in which he expresses his feelings towards farmwork and the worth of humanity. Cesar Chavez main argument was to regulate the use of pesticides in the agricultural industry. The pesticides that were being used in the farms were detrimental to the health of many of the laborers. They polluted the air, water, earth and the health of the people. In no way was this beneficial to anyone 's health. Chavez objective was to boycott the grapes and show the agricultural industry that they deserved to be treated better. Chavez speech was meaningful because he was one of the first mexican american leader who fought for equality amongst farm laborers.

By using powerful, evocative phrases in his writing, Chavez adds polish to the article. For instance, he says that he is “not blind to the feelings of frustration, impatience and anger” (Chavez 47-48). This potent metaphor adds liveliness to his writing, eliciting the same feeling as a rousing speech. Additionally, Chavez concocts a catchy saying that rings true for many people: “The rich may have money, but the poor have time.” (92-93). His use of metaphors and idioms transforms his article from simply functional to a powerful addition to the argument against nonviolence.

To make nonviolence the more logical option, Chavez implements logos and leads readers to believe that violence takes too many sacrifices. After identifying the advantages of nonviolence, he gives the readers two possible conclusions to make about the brutal opposite: “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” (Chavez). Presenting these two unfavorable options uses the logos appeal and persuades the audience to see nonviolence as the more reasonable choice with more promising outcomes. At another point in the article, Chavez tells the audience to simply “examine history” (Chavez). The straightforward statement causes readers to recall violent events of the past and logically recognize them as inferior to the previously mentioned nonviolent protests. This conclusion helps Chavez achieve his purpose by persuading the audience to side with his point of view and support nonviolence. After establishing his argument on sound reasoning, Chavez uses that foundation to employ other rhetorical appeals.

When Chavez states an argument, he then addresses the reader’s emotions to resolve any uplifting self conflict. He states, “Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect.” Then in the next paragraph he states, “But if we are committed to nonviolence only as a strategy or tactic, then if it fails the only alternative is to turn to violence.” He does this for the people that do not completely agree with his point, to show that he acknowledges both sides, which strengthens his argument. He later uses, “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” He does this to make the reader remember the past of violent protest and how many people sacrificed their lives for a cause, which makes the reader more passionate towards supporting his argument.

Cesar Chavez, a civil rights leader fighting for improving pay and working conditions of farmers, employs the use of nonviolence resistance in his role as a leader of the United Farm Workers. As a child, Chavez and his family worked as farmers on a field as migrant workers who were most likely treated in an unjust manner and thus, he dedicated his life to improving the conditions for all farmers. To honor Martin Luther King Jr. on the 10th anniversary of his death, Chavez wrote to a religious magazine that helps people in need about the benefits of nonviolent resistance. Throughout his letter, Chavez applies rhetorical devices such as pathos, diction, and juxtaposition to persuade and inform people about how powerful and effective nonviolence techniques can be for civil rights.

Chavez does not wait long to dive into his argument, instead, within the first few paragraphs he makes a very clear and comprehensive claim with the very strategic use of parallel structure when he says, “Nonviolence is more powerful than violence. 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” (Chavez 3). It can be seen here that this use of parallel structure plays a very crucial role in conveying Chavez’s message as it repeats over and over the main idea of the article. In doing so, the main idea becomes really emphasized and in a way drills the focus of the article into the minds of his audience. This provides a very easy and understandable

On the tenth anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination, Chavez utilizes King’s association with civil rights in order to give foundation to his own words. Chavez knows the anniversary is “...the best possible opportunity to recall the principles with which [their] struggle has grown and matured…” (ln 5-7) because King has values regarding civil rights that are synonymous to his own. Both Chavez and King possess the value that the human life is special and no one has the right to take it away. By referring to a well-known, wildly respected, and successful leader with a similar cause, Chavez has ensured that the audience will be receptive to his message that the use of nonviolence is a better solution to a problem than violence. A later reference to Gandhi further strengthens this effect. Chavez praises the effectiveness of a boycott, an act in which people forbid relations with a group in order to achieve change, made popular by Gandhi. The allusion to commonly revered supporters of the principles Chavez has built himself upon, gives him the credibility to gain the attention of the audience.

When appealing to the reader’s reasoning, Chavez uses ethos to state that nonviolence has a tactical advantage against oppression. At the same time, he provides explanations as to how violence is detrimental to their cause. He states that nonviolence “provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive” (Chavez, 14-16) and responding with nonviolence “will attract people’s support” (Chavez, 22-24). He also states that resorting to violence will either “cause the violence to be escalated” or create “total demoralization of the workers” (Chavez, 18-21). He contrasts the two points of view to emphasize the positives of nonviolence, while

Chavez states, “Our conviction is that human life is a very special possession given by God to man and that no one has the right to take it for any reason or for any cause, however just it may be.” This quick allusion to God can appeal to an audience with a religious background; it gives them a more spiritual connection with what Chavez speaks about. In addition, Chavez says, “The boycott, as Ghandi taught, is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change, allowing masses of people participate actively in a cause.” An allusion to the Mahatma Ghandi, a man who led India to independence from the British by practicing nonviolent civil disobedience, is used here. This really strengthens Chavez’s argument, as Ghandi was successful with what he fought for, which can give more confidence to the audience that nonviolent resistance can

The company was aware of what Chavez was doing, but they didn’t pay that much attention until they started to lose money. The boss of the company was started to get concerned and started sending his people to stop the strikes. The strikes of Chavez were nonviolence so he didn’t care if the police or somebody came to stop it because it’s against the law. However, the boss sends his people over to Chavez and told him that if they don’t stop the strike they will open fire to all the people. The people of Chavez were getting scared, but Chavez was motivating them by saying “si so Puede” until the police shot fire and took Chavez to jail. Cesar kept fighting until he got out of jail and proceed his work he had left. Cesar was losing hope because people were not following him because if they do they will get shot. Cesar stopped eating for a week to see if the people were still caring to change the way they were getting threaten and the people got the message and started doing strikes again without fear. The company was in rage, but they couldn’t do anything and the people were getting hopped. People from other countries were joining them too. People were with Chavez and when the company had no choice but to surrender. Chavez at the end stood up and started to eat again and he does justice for his people and for all the people around the world saying the famous phrase, “Si se Puede”.

Cesar Chavez once explained the horrors of society when he said, “When the man who feeds the world by toiling in the fields is himself deprived of the basic rights of feeding, sheltering and caring for is family, the whole community of man is sick.” (ufw.org) That means that the whole of humanity is sick and cruel when the man who works the fields all day long to feed the all of the citizens of the entire world can’t even provide for himself. It was not a small amount of people it affected, it was millions, and millions of citizens across the world. Chavez was a large factor in beginning to abolish racism, or also called the Civil Rights Movement.

César Chavez once said, “Nonviolence is not inaction. It is not discussion. It is not for the timid or weak. Non-violence is hard work. It is the willingness to sacrifice It is the patience to win.”. His words inspired one young man to turn his life around and become a man of character who used his experiences to help others. In his essay “César Chávez Saved My Life” Daniel “Nene” Alejandrez tells his story of the struggle and anger towards many injustices that happen around him and his journey from channeling that anger through crime to using it to start a foundation Barrios Unidos, to help men in prison overcome poverty, and the drug and violence culture surrounding them. In his essay, Alejandrez uses key scenes from his life to convey his main theme of spiritual connection to overcome the many hardships the Latino community faces in this country.

In an effort to share the pain people have when they are victims of violence, Chavez utilizes pathos. When it comes to violence Chavez doesn't stand down when they ask who the victims are. “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers.” By striking pity and making the reader reflect, Chavez grabs their attention and pulls them in a and lets them relate if they know or have been victims of violence. Cesar Chavez blames the armed forces for using weapons and machines for use of violence and calls them out for their ways, mocking them as they are doing the opposite, and hurting rather than helping. ”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.” Chavez mocking the armed forces allows him to show that by that they are doing is actually the most vicious type of oppression and isn't worth it and needed. Making