Cesar Chavez had a great pride towards everything he stood for, whether it was his catholic beliefs or protecting his fellow man from the oppressor. Growing up in America, Cesar Chavez witnessed discrimination from being Mexican first hand. By growing up in a family oriented catholic home, he was raised to care about the well being of others and to approach life in a nonviolent manner. Having a father who was a farmer, he witnessed the poor living conditions and wages that were given to him and knew that something had to be done. Cesar Chavez’s fight for improving working conditions for farmers helped him gather a large following of Mexican Americans.
The Plan of Ayala was a document where Emiliano called for a land reform, which drew support from the campesinos. The reason for why Emiliano Zapata wanted a land reform was because he noticed that the hacendados and the top class had monopolized all the land that belong to the people and he became like a robin hood to them because his plan was to take this land from the privilege and give it to the campesinos and that's the big difference between Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa even though they both wanted a land reform they did it differently. The land reform stated that one third of the land of the hacendados had to be given for them to share with the campesinos and whoever disobeys this would have the other two thirds taken away as the Plan of Ayala states. To the revolution the Plan of Ayala because it was a standard test of who they could trust because whoever disagree with this plan wasn't much of Emiliano’s liking, he was also able to carry this plan out in his home state of Morelos but had not much luck or time for him to implement his plan in the rest of Mexico. The Plan of Ayala was quite important for the aim of Emiliano Zapata in the Mexican revolution because it managed to give some of the land back to campesinos even though it wasn't at the scale Emiliano Zapata Invision.
The repeated use of “we”, “us” and “our” conveys the message to the audience that he is one of them. Chavez can relate to the farm workers based on his credibility (ethos) because of his past. Chavez went to work on the farm fields at a young age and knew exactly how the frustrated workers felt. In addition, referencing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the text further established Cesar Chavez’s ethos. King was someone who was revered by proponents of civil rights.
Mohandas Gandhi was a “key figure in the Indian struggle for independence.” He worked to use nonviolent ways to fight for equality and change in India. Gandhi was able to unite many groups and “inspired the common people of India to work for change.” In addition, Gandhi advocated using a more traditional approach (Wadley 202). Although Mohandas Gandhi 's satyagraha campaign caused violence, his advocacy for those who were discriminated against in Indian society led to the initial unification of India to gain independence from Great Britain. Gandhi’s attempt to peacefully fight for independence still left a considerable amount of violence during protests. Gandhi advocated for oppressed or mistreated groups, such as untouchables, women, and those
Even though NFWA seemed un credible, they are now well known and still stand today fighting for the rights of farm workers through out. Dunne showed how Cesar Chavez created a success in a labor union with the help of the
Swift did not believe in what he was saying, he only wanted to catch the people attention on problems he never clearly states. King’s uses ethos in ways that are easy to point out and seems to be his technique all the way through his letter. Martin Luther King Jr. mentions his own kids and their personal experiences, along with his experiences to show that he knows what he is talking about because he has in fact experienced all the injustices. King is also calm which appeals to his calm nature and showing no harm with fighting for civil rights and equality with the use of nonviolence which he addresses in his letter (In any nonviolent Campaign there are four basic steps…)(1).
Cesar Chavez explained nonviolence as a form of bringing awareness to not only the wages, working conditions and treatment of farm workers, but also the overall treatment of marginalized people in the United States. However, growing up with the perspective of the farmworker’s inspired him to spread the word of resistance against the growers and the government as a whole. Cesar Chavez purpose of La Causa not only inspired people to become a part of something so great, but to inflict change individually by encouraging his brothers and sisters to become mentally and physically strong. Which I believe is the backbone to a non-violence protest. It’s also the mentality a social worker should inhibit because dealing with change, it requires many of
He questions why the United States, a great democracy and Roosevelt, a man with a good heart did not help the refugees. He does not understand why “the greatest democracy, the most generous of all new nations in modern history” was so indifferent to those in pain. This serves as his confirmatio. It proves his case of ignoring those in need of help and not willing to help because it is easier to “avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes”. At the same time, he feels hopeful for the future because of “the joint decision of the United States and NATO to intervene in Kosovo and save those victims”.
was a better advocate for the Civil Rights movement because he was more peaceful in his actions. I do feel that both were very important people to bringing equality to this nation. But, MLK’s non-violent approach with handling things was much better in promoting civil justice. He wanted all groups of people to come together as one. Malcolm X wanted every race to be separated and I feel like if that would’ve happened the United States would be an awful place.
Chavez generalizes that masses of people have involved “in their own struggle throughout the movement “and free men and women “instinctively prefer democratic change to any other means,” which is “our best way of avoiding senseless violence.” By doing so, Chavez creates the idea of organized protest as both peaceful and effective, and therefore, makes nonviolence better than violence. To back these generalizations, Chavez uses Gandhi’s credibility. He paraphrases Gandhi in saying that boycott is the “most nearly perfect instrument of change.” Overall, Chavez makes a generalized claim that is easily rational, but locks it down with a quote from the famous nonviolent advocate Gandhi. This ultimately explains how nonviolence is effective, justifies it, and makes it more favorable than violence. Chavez’s use of repetition, generalizations, and credibility effectively persuades everyone of nonviolence.