In order to elaborate upon this, he employs the use of pathos in hopes that they might be more cautious of taking a violent stance. According to the prompt Cesar states “If we resort to violence then one of two things will happen: either violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps deaths…”.
Cesar attempts to share his thoughts with the masses in order to spread his solution to violence. He evokes strong emotions such as sadness, and guilt within his audience, along with posing logical questions that really make the audience think and listen to what he is saying. It is essential that Chavez's audience knows nonviolence has a more profound, lasting effect on society that paves the road ahead for change. In order to evoke this change Chavez must alter the way his audience thinks. He prods at their emotions by bringing religion into his argument and relying on the people's faith to change their thinking, he states
In the speech Chavez says, “We are also convinced that nonviolence is more powerful than violence.” He then goes on to say that violence causes deaths and demoralizes the people, while nonviolence attracts people’s support and is morally just. The use of juxtaposition as a rhetorical device throughout the whole speech shows the pros of nonviolence and the cons of violence. This technique helps Chavez develop his argument because it creates a favorable bias
Also he uses irony to show why we are so opposed to the idea of nonviolent solutions or why we have such a hard time trying to use nonviolence to solve problems when we have basically programed ourselves to use violence to solve everything. In the sentence “When victory comes through violence, it is a victory with strings attached.” Chavez very bluntly told us that a victory isn't a true victory if we resort to using violence against each other it was merely a means to an end. Also in the sentence “ If we beat the growers at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death.” he is telling us that by using violence we will eventually lose all regard for human life and our humanity will dwindle away until there is nothing left of
Several people from different walks of life have extended their own opinions on just and unjust wars. Defencists argue the need to engage in war as an act of defense when there is a threat, such as facing a country what initiated a violent war, overthrowing a cruel and oppressive government, and protecting its people against an invader; the Realists’ belief is similar to those of the Defencists, but that war is said to be just when your moral standards call for it (Orend, 2009). For instance, fighting against the US government after it overthrew your previous dictator, but then proceeded to use Phosphorus shells on civilian targets. As a Realist soldier ordered by the US government to participate in this war, you would call for the right to
Many conservatives did not support the boycott and saw King as the cancer of the movement , and, therefore, they would approve of his arrest. King was known amongst conservatives and liberals as law-abiding citizen who preached peaceful protests. Yet a person who is arrested is typically associated with crime, and the photograph calls to question the validity of King's lawful nature. The image works to criminalize King, and to depict him as culpable and at fault. King himself embodied the civil rights movement, and his arrest implies that the black protestors are criminals, which works to negatively portray black activists during the Bus Boycott.
Freedom fighters do not need to terrorize a population into submission. Freedom fighters target the military forces and the organized instruments of repression keeping dictatorial regimes in power. Freedom fighters struggle to liberate their citizens from oppression and to establish a form of government that reflects the will of the people. Now, this is not to say that those who are fighting for freedom are perfect or that we should ignore problems arising from passion and conflict.
He believed that not any situation should have violence. For example, he did not use violence even when the police arrested him for no reason. Also, when he was attacked by a mob of white people in Durban, he did not want to press charges against the mob of people. He said “it was one of his principles, not to seek redress the world no matter the risks and consequences of his actions”. Even though he had some injuries he still did not want to press charges, which revealed Gandhi really did not like violence and he would do anything to display to the people that you can solve differences without violence.
Law acts really quickly, so by following one 's impulses could mean an assured unhappy doom. It does not take much, just patience, to be able to stop and think before acting. In the end, it is worth it, decisions taken guided by impulses and rushed are most likely to be regretted afterward. There is a clear pattern created by Romeo 's actions throughout the
It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country.” What we say in reply, Crito, that the laws speak the truth, or not?” (TDS pg 51,52). By breaking the law, Socrates would be disobeying the laws as a citizen, like a child disobeying his parent. By escaping he would have been doing an impious act that would affect his standing with the gods.
Chavez states "if it fails our only alternative is violence". The people need an understanding of what is taking place in order to handle however amount of struggle is occurring nonviolently. Violence happens when concern about any human aspect gets deepened. Nonviolence is a more successful way to prevent future issues.
Who would've thought that nonviolence could amount to anything, much less produce results that are far more effective than that produced through violence? There have been several figures in history who have conveyed the power nonviolence bears. It doesn't not lie in the hand off of anyone to take the life away from another, especially because once a life I taken, it can't be returned. When people partake in violence, there is sure to be at least one negative results. Often, much more than not, the violence ends in injuries or even death.
A voice for the muzzled farm workers, a civil rights activist, outspoken about the unfair conditions migrant workers are faced, and inadequate wage given, Cesar Chavez speaks out in his Address in 1984 Commonwealth club of San Francisco. Chavez describes the injustice and unfair conditions farm workers confront on a daily basis, and what the farm workers, as a union the farm workers, must collaborate and do together in order to suppress the companies - growers - unfair conditions. In the speech, Chavez utilizes statistics, testimony, and repetition to not only win justice for the farm workers, but implement the urgent change that needs to happen in the eyes of Americans towards farm workers. The primary purpose of Chavez speech was to gain
Labor union organizer and civil rights leader, Cesar Chavez, published an article in the magazine of a religious organization to argue that it is more valuable to take the time to achieve justice rather than using violence, also known as nonviolent resistance. Chavez develops his argument through allusions, and imagery while creating a strong emotional appeal towards his audience. He adopts a defiant tone in order to gain awareness among his readers. Chavez first opens his argument by reflecting back on Dr. Martin Luther Kings Jr.’s life in order to commemorate his death and to also open his stance on nonviolence through Dr.King. He states, “Dr.King’s entire life was an example of power that nonviolence brings to bear in the real world.”
He stood there, fingers bleeding, he had just pierced his fingers once again, the thorns sticking off the crops were covered with multiple farm workers blood. He begins to hunch back over and start packing more crops. For numerous years, he has done this, yet it still pains him to get up every morning, say goodbye to his family, go to the field and work outrageous hours for less than a two dollars a day. Cesar Chavez was only ten years old when he had to face the cruel. tough world.