Compare And Contrast Gandhi And Chavez

Chavez introduces the article with a use of ethos with his first reference to Dr. Martin Luther King. While fighting for the rights of African Americans, King never turned to violent protest, and Chavez admires that about him. By introducing King in the first paragraph, it creates a sense of easier understanding to see his view. Chavez later references to Gandhi, who was a non-violent icon in India fighting for civil rights. He says,

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

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.

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

Non-violence is a peaceful strategy people used in the 1900’s to revolt against the government. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mohandas Gandhi had the most success in changing the way we live today. How did they get nonviolence to work? Well they were very disobedient, disciplined, and determined to make a change in society.

To start off Chavez uses an allusion when he mentions Dr. King, and his belief in the power of nonviolent resistance. “Dr. Kings entire life was an example of power that nonviolence brings to bear in the real world.” Chavez also uses Ghandi, a person well known for his strong support of nonviolent protest, to point out that “the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change” the boycott.” By alluding to these people known best for their strong belief in nonviolent resistance Chavez establishes a sense of trust in his audience, allowing them to trust his ideas and make his purpose, which is to persuade readers of this religion magazine to support nonviolent resistance, easier to get across.

Chavez begins his article by analyzing what effect violence and nonviolence have . He appeals to ethos because of the credibility to Dr.King and what he stood for.  This helps Chavez achieve his purpose by establishing the importance of Dr. Kings accomplishment in his life. According to the speaker, “Dr. King’s entire life was an example of power than nonviolence brings to bear in the real world. It is an example that inspired much of the philosophy and strategy of the farm worker’s movement.” This shows how ethos appeals effect to reenforce the peacefulness of King’s nature, and follows with how individuals were affected by this powerful man.

In the 20th century, colonized countries were calling for independence from the European powers that colonized them. Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were two of the most influential people who participated in that. Mandela worked to liberate South Africa from the clutch of apartheid and Gandhi worked to liberate India from Britain. Over the years, they have been compared on their methods and goals. Mandela and Gandhi were very different when looking at their goals for their countries, their methods and their results.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke about social and racial justice and injustice by defining them in the Letter from Birmingham Jail. Dr. King believed that justice was a God-given right for every human being on Earth and that passive resistance and nonviolent civil disobedience were ways to obtain justice. Dr. King’s philosophy on the way to achieve justice was significantly influenced by Hinduism, specifically Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was an Indian civil rights leader and introduced Dr. King to the philosophy of passive resistance and nonviolent civil disobedience to evoke change. Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism all believe that the only way to evoke change in society is passive resistance and nonviolent civil disobedience “As a seminary

In both works, Dr. King Jr. adopted techniques of series rhetoric, repetitions, effective use of metaphors and similes in protesting against social injustice and assuring his audience of a hope for a better tomorrow. In the letter to the clergy Dr. King Jr. invoked their thinking of what a just and unjust law was. He explained that the just law is a moral act of God’s will and the unjust law is such act instituted by men. When in conflict, he admonished society to accept the laws of God over those of men and cited instances where society had an obligation to reject unjust laws of segregation. Dr. King Jr. draws inspiration from men of historical significance to ascertain his claim and quotes

Making a difference isn’t an easy assignment to do, but if an individual does, they become a hero. Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr, and Gandhi are three heros of the past that will never be forgotten. Their moral integrity is what made them so memorable. Posterities to come will always have these men’s actions and decisions on their minds. Even though some people might have their own opinions, they will always be remembered as “the men who made a difference”.

In the first section of the article, Cesar Chavez begins by stating the competence of Martin Luther King and then elucidates the power of nonviolence through comparing and contrasting nonviolence and violence. Although violence results in “many injuries”,”deaths on both sides ”, and “total demoralization”,( 4th paragraph) nonviolence is supportive and

This was the century in which leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. frequently graced the covers of newspapers around the globe for their peaceful marches and words of wisdom that called on the public to help with the progression of society. Both leaders proved to be successful and will forever be remembered as impactful members of society who aided in the progression of their cause. They won’t be remembered as violent, radical tyrants, but as peaceful, effective leaders. Society supported their causes because they proved to be able to instigate change without harming others. They decided against brutal revolution and chose instead to pursue change through peace and awareness. Though their efforts were occasionally met with violence, they continued to pursue order and harmony. This appealed to a society that undoubtedly wished for a period of tranquility after witnessing two violent world wars and faced imminent international

Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela work for the human rights and against the injustice laws with non-violence, Gandhi also work for nature independent. They have similar objective of the struggle, so they have some four similar ideas. First one is non-violence, all of them achieve their objective by non-violence way, and non-violence is their key idea of their work goal. They use their non-violence in social movement is second similar idea. The third similar idea is all of them against with injustice law such as discrimination; they know this is main problem of social. The last one is all of them have wide mass base, they know any social movement can’t without people, and they know how to make thousand and thousand have same voice. Base on their similar ideas, we can conclusion the modern non-violence

A leader is a representative of a group of people who embodies confidence, optimism, empathy, courage, and trust along with many other traits. When discussing the topic of distinguished leaders, a notable name that can not be forgotten is Nelson Mandela, for his bold efforts in healing a mangled nation that had been segregated due to racial differences for more than fifty years. Another remarkable leader who must be acknowledged is Mahatma Gandhi for fighting for India’s independence from the British Empire, being an advocate for Hindu-Muslim unity, and for attempting to abolish the caste system in India for the betterment of people of lower class. In my opinion, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi are by far the greatest leaders who