Nonviolence, By Cesar Chavez

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.

Multiple times, throughout the text, Chavez uses pathos to appeal emotionally to his audience. Chavez builds a connection and empathy with the readers and persuades them to be people who fight for causes nonviolently. In the sixth paragraph Chaves states that, “men and women who are truly concerned about people are non violent by nature. These people become violent when the deep concern they have for people is frustrated and when they are faced with seemingly insurmountable odds.” Chavez states that everyone who actually cares about people should be nonviolent, that they shouldn’t have to resort to violence because they don’t need it. This quote builds a connection and causes self-reflection for the

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

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

Acknowledging his consideration for both sides of the argument and providing his definition of nonviolence allows Chavez’s listeners to trust him because he has carefully described his own ideas while also considering perspectives contradictory to his own. Violence is described to result in “...many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides…” as well as “...total demoralization of the workers” (ln 19-21). Nonviolence is described as the opposite of violence. Nonviolence will be there to “...[support] you if you have a just and moral cause” (ln 13-14). Providing a clear

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

“Letter from Delano”, by Cesar Chavez, the writer is attempting to perform this impossible feat on E.L. Barr Jr., the president of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League. Throughout his life, 1927 to 1993, Chavez was a prominent civil rights activist who fought for the rights of farm workers. He performed nonviolent protests including marches, boycotts, and hunger strikes. One famous boycott was the Grape Strike, in which Cesar urged Americans to buy grapes from foreign places in order to bring attention to the plight of field workers. By 1969, when the letter was written, Chavez had already co-founded the National Farm Workers Association. His goal was to fight for better treatment, increased pay, and improved working conditions. His nonviolent methods were extremely similar to the protests of Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated in 1968, over the rights of African Americans. In the letter, Cesar Chavez is specifically addressing claims, made by the California Grape and Tree Fruit League, of a violent protest performed by the farm workers. Throughout the letter, Chavez confronts the shocking accusations, explains his use of nonviolent methods, and emphasizes the purpose of his protests. He strives to make the president understand the plight of the workers and view their protests as a product of the worker’s determination for change, not as violent and personal attacks that

Cesar Chavez had a view that all races work together for one goal, he had the strikers of Delano take a “solemn vow of nonviolence” (Cesar Chavez Foundation, chavezfoundatio.org, ‘Against All Odds’: Cesar Chavez & the Delano Grape Strike). Chavez followed the examples set forth by M.K. Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by using the nonviolence strategy. However for the first time in American History, Chavez used an untested method when he boycotted using California table grapes. The outcome surfaced an exceptional result of major support from outside the Central Valley. The UFW received support from other unions, church activists, and students and civil rights groups. The step was initiated when Cesar Chavez led a 300-mile march that started in Delano and ended at the State Capital of Sacramento. The union garnered National attention across the country and it gave birth and served as the UFW’s stand against unjust treatment against minority

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.

Cesar Chavez championed for unionization of grape farm workers. Chavez employed strikes, fasts, and boycotts to raise awareness for their cause. Violent retaliation was needless to Chavez so much he believed that the most audacious thing to do was to “sacrifice” one’s self “for others” in the name of justice (Alarcon). Cesar Chavez and his associates were targets of increasing acts of violence. By not meeting violence with violence, their cause fell on listening ears. Cesar and the farm worker’s retaliation consisted of increased dedication and more strikes. Drawing from peaceful protest historical figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez was successful with many labor strikes. Chavez could have raised awareness much more rapidly by using violence. However, he “fasted for twenty-five days” for the unerring choice of peaceful protest (Cesar Chavez Gains Grounds for Farmers). Belief in their cause fueled each protester. A single violent outburst from the workers would ripple outward and cause them to lose ground. The farm workers did not make gains without facing hardships. Cesar Chavez’s fast was the result of “increasing advocacy” calling for “violence” among fellow strikers (History.com Staff). As a leader, one must take responsibility for the actions of their supporters. The strikes were beginning to strain. Careful steps were to be taken in order to preserve the strikers’ reason and renew support. Cesar had to challenge their oppressors

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”.

In another case, “however important the struggle is and however much misery, poverty and exploitation exists, we know that it cannot be more important than a human life” which also shows Chavez’ familiarity to the emotions of his audience frequently experience (37-39). He brings up a moral factor as people are starting to consider harmful tactics. He is well aware of how hatred can lead to harmful effects, and he reminds his audience that it would be immoral to potentially take the life of a human being just because they are frustrated with the injustice system. Chavez is only trying to ease his audience because he is familiar that there is a widespread feeling of impatience and anger.

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.

The article “Cesar Chavez Saved My Life,” written by Daniel “Nane” Alejandrez reflects on Mr. Alejandraz’s past, covering some very unfortunate events, but with a purpose of pulling emotion from the reader. While reading some parts of the article, I had to reread it over a few times to comprehend the point that the author was trying to make. The most important thing about knowing his past is that it is significantly different, and much more positive in the future because of one person, Cesar Chavez.

The video suggests that violence has a simple dynamic, I make you suffer more than I suffer. It further explains that using nonviolence is not about beating the other opponent but about defying the system. In 1960’s the students defied the system by engaging in the sit-ins and starting boycotts. Gandhi disobeyed the government by creating a march and by going against the salt tax. He also urged the people of India to start making their own clothes and to stop working for the government. The youth of South Africa challenged the apartheid by uniting and boycotting the stores in the nearby town. They decided to support their own business by buying in the township. These are just a few nonviolence methods that are used to empower civil disobedience. By forming varies nonviolent groups the leaders understand that they have to go through hard decisions, although they like to view the potential results rather than the ongoing crisis. They do what they do for the benefit of the greater population. They also understand that change starts with one person and anybody can make that