In his article, published on the tenth of the murder of Dr.Martin Luther King,
Jr., Cesar Chavez calls for the thinking of King and fighters for peaceful resistance. Putting into use a determined tone, he defends that only nonviolence will be able to the goals of.
By using almost-opposite speaking style to violent actions and peaceful actions, he can reason
For the advantages of the later; also his strong beliefs and use of plural pronouns and a question that doesn't need an answer help to drive his argument for peaceful resistance.
Chavez begins his recalling the power of nonviolence as through Dr. King, and moving on to compare and contrast violence and nonviolence. Through very direct sentences, he points to that nonviolence is more
…show more content…
Also, he's talking about/saying of violence as being harmful to "both sides" help establish a fair character, and how violence is harmful to anyone, his position on the right to vote, to free speech, to fair and equal treatment, etc.,. He later moves on to once again directly stating contrasts. "Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect" (Paragraph 5). His attachment of words like "support," "sense of right and wrong," and "justice" to nonviolence has the effect of making it more to the audience and showing why it is right and effective.
Throughout the passage, Chavez puts into use the plural pronoun "we." His repetition of "we are convinced" in his article is appealing in that it is very. It does not/irritate his readers. He contrasts "well" with "these who will see violence as the shortcut to change" (paragraph 7). Heshows/ the "we" as a morally right understanding people, ones who "know the [struggle] cannot be more
…show more content…
He (helps the advancement of) this idea towards the end of his article, not only calling for which Gandhi taught in addition to Dr. King, but also by means of a question that doesn't need an answer. He Can fight nonviolence by appealing to authority; his hints to the teachings of Dr. King and Gandhi work as historical proofs that nonviolence is powerful and effective. Also, Chavez pairs this with a logical appeal in the form of once again, very direct and declarative sentence - short but powerful. He,for example, strongly defends towards the end of his article "people suffer from violence. Examine history." He once again call upon references to the past to make a logical argument on why peaceful resistance is the most successful form of resistance and pairs it with a question that doesn't need an answer: "who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?" In an instance of hypophora, he answers "the poor, the workers, the people do," intelligently and sensibly outlining the harmful things of
Cesar Chavez, a civil rights activist, was a major proponent of workers’ rights in Hispanic history. Cesar was born in 1927, in Yuma, Arizona, as a Mexican- American. He grew up in a large family of ranchers and grocery store owners. His family lived in a small adobe house, which was taken away during the Great Depression. In order to receive ownership of the house, his father had to clear eighty acres. Unfortunately, after his father cleared the land, the agreement was broken, and the family was unable to purchase the house. Since Cesar’s family was homeless, they had to become migrant farmers. In order to find work, they relocated to California.
Barr. Cesar Chavez put a quote about Martin Luther King Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which give the message to the reader that Cesar Chavez had no intentions of having a rebellion but to just exposed of the injustice that it was given to the immigrant workers because by exposing those inequalities to the union is when it can be cured since it was done before. It also tries to explain to the reader that they will not give up on getting equal right for the people because Cesar Chavez stated that “They have been under the gun, they have been kicked and beaten and herded by dogs” this shows to the audience that the people of Cesar Chavez will not give up even if there are gun pointed into their heads. It also stated into the “Letter of Delano” that “Time accomplishes for the poor what money does for the rich” what this is trying to say and what it is trying to reach for the audience is that even if the immigrants are poor and they can’t afford not to work they are willing to do it because with that time they were getting prepared, prepared for what it was coming in the nest years to come they had a
King consents that negations are an impressive approach but elaborates of their current unavailability since the matter is merely ignored. Due to this, King argues that the nonviolent actions purpose “to create a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront this issues” (King). Here, King is consenting to the audience’s opinion of negotiating as well as adding the real issue’s facts so as to justify the reasons for doing it in his own manner. The audience can be made to reason and agree that his deeds are the most appropriate approach through supporting his decision by arguing that the community denies paying attention to the cause and non-violent protest has a huge
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...
By using diction and repetition, Cesar Chavez emphases the need to use nonviolence during moments of injustice. The rhetorical choices made in this argument draw forth feelings of understanding and cause the readers to think deeper into Chaves' point of view. The purpose is to carry a message that shows the power of nonviolence and what it brings to the world. People quickly follow the straight, bloody path of force and violence, rather than thinking deeper in search for the winding yet cleaner path. As human beings, we crave the freedom and power we believe was bestowed upon us by God. We will fight tooth and nail, even threw the deaths of many, in order to achieve these trivial things.
He states “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers (the protesters). The people of the land are the ones who give their bodies and don’t really gain that much for it. We believe it is too big a price to pay for not getting anything.” In this passage Cesar Chaves states that a violent protest only hurts the protesters and not who they are protesting against. Why would we go into a violent protest to only lose all of the supporters and get our own people injured or even dead and to have an even less of a chance to win the
The purpose of this memo is to compare the similarities and contrast the differences between Jimmy Hoffa Sr. and Cesar Chavez. Both Hoffa and Chavez were great charismatic labor organizers who had different methods of achieving their goals for their union. They had vastly different attitudes and personalities which aided them both in different ways. To fully understand each individual, a bit of background information is necessary.
...y shocks most of people who hear and see it, encouraging and moving others who also suffer. In instance, Elena screamed at Longoria to show she would not give them any information about resistances and Antonio when Longoria was about to killing her (Tobar 148). Elena sacrificed her life to protect Antonio and her friends who fought against the Guatemalan government without using any violence when she faced Longoria who tried to kill her. She showed it was important not to be daunted by fear and to keep fighting for justice. Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi advocated nonviolent resistance as a means of seeking peace and gaining independence for the Republic of India from Britain. Justice should be served by means in the name of justice. Nonviolent resistance is a powerful way to fight against the cycle of violence and work towards the realization of a peaceful world.
In 1962, after a trip to India he gained a deeper understanding of what he could achieve by using the nonviolence approach. Upon his return to the United States of America, he focused his attention to Birmingham, Alabama the most segregated city in America, there he achieved two things, one was to demonstrate nonviolent marches, and protests can work to and also by using children, he could teach them that the nonviolent was the way forward. The protest in Birmingham, Alabama shock...
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.”
By comparing the two through very direct sentences, he indicates that nonviolence is more powerful than violence while violence leads to “many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides or there will be total demoralization” (lines 19-21), nonviolence is “supportive and crucial.” Using contrasting diction and connecting violence to images of death and demoralization as well as explaining how it will affect both sides, demonstrates how violence is harmful to everyone. Then by highlighting the power as well as the morality of nonviolence, by using bold statements such as “support” “justice” and “powerful” appeals the the audience and further influences them to advocate and support nonviolence as well as view it as superior to violence due to the powerful diction Chavez used to bring attention to the values of
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
Chavez believes that, from a moral standpoint, violent revolutions can only lead to suffering and corruption. In the fourth sentence of the article, Chavez uses a religious appeal. “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 cause, no matter how just.” Chavez believes that all human life, even those who oppressed him and his people, is precious. He states that God gave human’s life, and what God has given man shall not take away. While he mentions God nowhere else in the
If King defines violence as “immoral and destructive means” (King, 400), and Mitchell claims that violence can be used to bring about peace and equality. And King further states that “immoral and destructive means” (King, 400), can only bring about immoral and destructive ends. Then it is possible to infer that peace and equality are immoral and destructive. This is an error brought about through a lack of a definition to the terms violence and non-violence. As with the time King found new terms to differentiate between the types of love, he must find a number of new terms with which we may differentiate between the types of violence. The lack of variety has led to confusion that can possibly be eased through an ability to discriminate meanings. A possible distinction King could make between his violence and Mitchell’s violence is by using the terms brutality and brouhaha. A brouhaha could be what King calls non-violence, and brutality being what King calls violence. Brutality being a physical, forceful and damaging act of cruelty. A brouhaha is an enthusiastic act of abnormal behavior for the purpose of causing discomfort in others. An example of a brouhaha would be what King would call a non-violent protest. An example of brutality would be smashing in the windows of a store that refused to serve someone. To fix the claim “the type of peace King predicts from non-violence is better than one from violence,” Dr. King need only add a disclaimer stating the fact that such a claim is purely conjecture and wrought with bias. These changes could cause the essay to lose some of its power over the public, a group that has to think very little about the information that moves them, but it is personally believed that the changes would make the document more accurate for the people who
Gandhi and King both agreed that nonviolence is accomplished by revolutionizing the relationship between adversaries, and that its strength lies in their commitment to justice. However, Gandhi puts emphasis on a need for personal suffering in the practice of nonviolence, a stance that is somewhat less aggressive than