Violence Vs Nonviolence Analysis

Martin Luther King Jr. died fighting peacefully against injustice and for equal rights. Similarly, nonviolent protests must continue to be used today because violence only leads to more violence. For the tenth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, Cesar Chavez illustrated the importances of nonviolence in his article, “He Showed Us the Way”. In the passage, Chavez expresses strong pathos, powerful diction, and complex syntax in order to encourage 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.

In the excerpt, Cesar Chavez, labor union organizers and civil rights leader, discusses how nonviolent resistance to problems in society easily resolves a situation better than violent protest. Throughout his speech, he uses many rhetorical strategies to argue his view on nonviolent resistance. Chavez’ use of ethos, logos, and pathos, creates his passionate attitude towards nonviolent resistance.

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.

In enjoying, as well as closely examining, an article written by Cesar Chavez on the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which was published in a magazine of a religious organization devoted to helping those in need, it becomes evident that Chavez, through the use of many rhetorical devices and literary tools, feels very strongly on the thought of nonviolence being superior to violence. According to the labor leader and civil rights activist, nonviolence will always conquer violence, which Chavez makes clear through the use of rhetorical tricks such as allusions, specific word choice and sentence structure, strategic tone and by appealing to the values of his audience.

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.

Cesar Chavez was a civil rights leader and a labor union organizer who delivered a carefully crafted speech by acknowledging the perspective of his audience in order to vouch for the use of nonviolence over violence. While Chavez is arguing against the use of violence, he refrains from blaming anyone who had ever used violence. He manages to gain the trust of the audience by presenting himself as an understanding and compassionate individual, which allows them to be more receptive to his message.

Chavez begins his rationalization reminding the audience of the vigorous efforts Dr.King displayed in his cause; comparing and contrasting violence against non violence. Chavez explicitly states violence leads to nothing more than “injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides” as non violence is “supportive and crucial.” His variation in diction deriving from descriptions of deaths and injuries as opposed to the righteous dignation convinces readers with what they would prefer. Similarly, his mentioning of violence as being harmful to “both sides” helps bring clarity to a point with lack of bias, and demonstrates how violence is damaging to all equally, regardless of his position on civil rights. He later moves on to once again explicitly stating distinct contrasts.

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

Cesar Chavez, a labor leader and civil rights activist, wrote an article that discusses his strong stand on how using nonviolent resistance is the better way to go rather than using violent acts. Inspired by the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Chavez writes an article about his argument on nonviolent resistance; he accomplishes that by using rhetorical choice like allusions, pathos, and tone.

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

When caught in an injustice, protesters tend to use various strategies in attempt to successfully convey their opinions. In an article published by Cesar Chavez, he describes his fight for civil rights by using Martin Luther King Junior’s methods to show how violence fails to promote victory. Chavez appeals to his audience by using ethos, pathos, and allusion to highlight how nonviolence is more of an effective form of protesting.

To make Chavez’s point about nonviolence more effective, he makes an allusion to Gandhi. To validate his claim about the importance of nonviolence to create change, he states, “The boycott, as Gandhi taught, is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolence change, allowing masses of people to participate actively in a cause.” Here, Chavez makes an allusion to Gandhi because he was one of the earliest examples of using nonviolence as a way to protest. So, just like what King Jr. did to fight nonviolently to impose change, it emphasizes Chavez’s point since he’s using an example of someone else who has done this. Also, by using Gandhi and how he states that nonviolence is a perfect way to combat something since it allows everyone to participate, it reveals how nonviolence is used as a way to unify people for a cause unlike violence which promotes the injury and death of others. So, this helps prove that nonviolence is

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