Violence In Cesar Chavez's Argument

Former civil rights leader Cesar Chavez justifies nonviolent protest with the use of several appeals to logic and ethics in his contribution to a magazine for a religious organization. His goal being to convince the audience into realizing that nonviolent protest is the more effective option when working towards a change. His optimistic tone helps the reader connect to the cause of nonviolent protest with the help of rhetorical devices like figurative

Cesar Chavez was a profoundly excellent leader that changed the lives of thousands of immigrant labor workers. Labor Unions have been a fundamental part of the lives of labor workers all throughout history and in these groups the marginalized people experienced exploitation and discrimination. The businesses increased their profits by over working and not providing basic labor rights to the workers such as hygiene. Chavez empathized with the workers since he experienced the hardships of being overworked and not being paid fairly. For this he stayed committed to society and took many actions against the injustices. He believed in better working conditions for the farmworkers which led him to start huge protests to get to his goal. In order to better the lives of these immigrant people Chavez displayed bravery to do what no else had the courage to do, to help others, and for that reason he displayed exceptional leader characteristics. He wasn’t afraid to stand by his views and throughout his fight for civil rights he displayed vision, concern and courage, which later led to a better future for the farmworkers.

This article gave us a rough idea about the public 's response to Cesar Chavez 's actions. It tried to report all sides of the conflict. The public had mixed views. Some supported Chavez 's cause and offered to do anything to support him. Others were angry with Chavez because they didn 't feel he had a just cause, and they hated paying more for their produce. This article also gave Bishop Donelly 's views on Chavez. This was a valuable resource in that it better described both sides of the issue. Giving both sides created balance in the information offered and allowed me to make an informed decision.

Cesar Chavez on the tenth anniversary of Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr's assassination, wrote an article in a religious organization's magazine. In his article, he accentuates his argument on nonviolent resistance. By the use of specific examples and rhetorical devices. He appeals to his crowd and provides his argument as to why nonviolence should be used to accomplish their goals. One of the specific examples being that Dr.Kings life exemplifies the farm workers movement. Dr.Kings death giving them the opportunity to remember the principles of which their struggle has matured. Further, into the article, he infers that the use of nonviolence poses the opposite effect of violence. The effect being the attraction of support from people that would

The assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. devastated a large majority of people around the world. His works of nonviolent acts against racism motivated many, including civil rights activist Cesar Chavez, to solve matters without resorting to inhumane behaviors. Inspired by Dr. King Jr.’s work, Chavez and his union of labor workers devoted themselves to helping those in need through peaceful protests. Similar methods are proven to be successful; Mahatma Gandhi, for instance, gained a great deal of supporters because of his pacifism and tranquil methods of boycotting against British domination. Despite brutal and savage methods of persuasion slowly gaining support, Chavez proves that nonviolent actions are superior; he does so by using ethos in order to uphold moral standards, logos (in reference to the past), and pathos to appeal to the emotions of his audience.

One of Chavez’s most well-known protests is the Delano Grape Strike. Chavez is well known for this individual strike because he was specifically asked from the Filipinos, who were the peoples that were affected so they started the strike because of bad pay (90 cents an hour) and horrible working conditions. Cesar accepted the invitation from the Filipinos because he felt as though this strike could have been helpful towards his protesting causes. This strike focused on the pay, working conditions, and the land owner’s violent actions towards the farm workers. Cesar new the fight for these rights was not going to end anytime soon. The most challenging factor in this strike was keeping all the other farm workers fighting for their right as Mexican American farm workers. Some of the supporting men on the strike were starting to resort to the same violence they received from their employers. Cesar devoted this thought from his head as well as the men who came up with it, because he believed that nonviolent actions forced you to be more creative, in other words, it lets you keep control of the offensive, which is highly important in winning any contest, or in this case protest,

However, analyzing the ideologies from both Chavez and Martin Luther king of nonviolence, I learned that the moment you can get yourself to do harmful things, you then have lost yourself in the process. It then, defeats everything you have worked for up to this point. The feeling of guilt, loss of control mentally and physically will barry you alive (Orosco, Page 47) and for the rest of your life you will always have to justify your actions in regards to harming

Mexican immigration has been a controversy in the United States before 1980. According to Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova, Mexican immigration can be divided in three waves: the first one, before World War two, the second one started with the Bracero program, and the last one after it. Nevertheless, Mexican immigration can be seen as something threat or as the opposite, a benefit to the country and it all depends on which side you want to be. The American, Cesar Chavez who was a farm worker, also creator/leader of the United Farm Workers Union, influenced ad contributed to United States history by using Mexican’s “dignity” and nonviolent strategies to showed Americans that Mexicans could accomplished hard work and being successful for the country.

In the entirety of the structure of the text Chavez provides support for nonviolence and then provides the reader with hypothetical situations with the use of the word “if.” The contrast of these hypothetical instances becomes ingrained into the reader's mind throughout the repetitive use and give the association of goodness with nonviolence in comparison to loss of self and emotion by violent ferocity. Seen in the example below, “When victory comes through violence, it is a victory with strings attached. If we beat the growers at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death. Such a thing would have a tremendous impact on us. We would lose regard for human beings. Then the struggle would become a mechanical thing. When you lose your sense of life and justice, you lose your strength,” the text talks about how if we decide to use violence it comes with other unforeseen repercussions and goes into detail of what these consequences are. The references to time provide a contrast and traits of similarity in order to further reinforce Chavez's supportive stance on nonviolence. The use Dr. King, Gandhi and mentions of history in itself provide an ethic to the writer by point out past examples that have proved to be key in rebellions and

In the first paragraph Chavez mentions Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, stating that Dr. King’s “entire life was an example of power that nonviolence brings…” This reference to Dr. King causes those who know of his impact to realize that he lead a strong historical example of what nonviolence could achieve. By using Dr. King as an example it indicates that Chavez thinks that if nonviolence had heavily impacted the past, then it would most likely do the same in the present and future. Chavez also makes a reference to Gandhi and his nonviolent boycott in India, claiming that what he taught “is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change.” By using the word perfect to describe Gandhi’s teachings of nonviolence, it further supports Chavez’s stance for nonviolent resistance. The two allusions to historical figures develop Chavez’s argument as they remind him and the audience of how large of an impact nonviolence had on the world in the past and how it could be applied to the

The audience that Chavez is addressing is very familiar with Dr. King, and the troubles he went through so it is not hard at all to relate to the audience with ideas of Martin Luther King. “ Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and that is a crucial importance to win any contest.” With subject of violent an nonviolent means is so important to almost everyone that it makes almost everyone stand on their toes. With the subject Chavez does a good job of stating “we” instead of “I” because of

The civil rights movement was a strong topic of discussion in politics during the mid-twentieth century. Martin Luther King Jr., one of the most influential leaders of the civil rights movement, was assassinated which caused many protests and calls for violence. In Cesar Chavez’s speech, he is telling the people that nonviolence resistance is the best way to go about the situation. Chavez’s uses juxtaposition, diction, and rhetorical appeals to strongly convey his argument about nonviolent resistance.

First, Chavez provides strong pathos, ethos and logos to convey the power nonviolent actions have to change the world for the better. He applies ethos to show that nonviolence is something that people are drawn to. In fact Chaves presents a great nonviolent advocate who lived during the segregation: “Dr. King’s entire life was an example of power that nonviolences brings...” (Chavez 1) His nonviolent approach to difficulties still have a huge aftermath in our world and change it for the better. The author really emphasizes the trueness of King’s character and his example to our struggling lives to make a better world. Additionally, Chavez uses emotion to change the readers view to the capability nonviolence has. For example, “We are convinced that when people are faced with a direct

Chavez also makes full use of the morals of his readers when convincing them to gift him their support. Published in a religious magazine, Chavez’s article appeals to readers’ sense of religious duty by invoking god. By advocating that God has mandated that life is not something that can be taken away he sways many of the deeply religious to his side. He also appeals to readers’ sense of humanity and virtue, portraying nonviolence as something for those who don’t want to exploit the weak or poor and for those who truely care about people. His audience’s morality will not let them be a part of a “vicious type of oppression” or have victory come at the “expense of injury … and death” or even “lose regard for human beings.” By depicting violence

For every 1,000 people killed by police, only one officer is convicted of a crime.