In the beginning of his article, Cesar Chavez makes it clear that he is a strong supporter of using nonviolence to make a change. He alludes to well known civil rights movement figures as a way to show that the use of violence is not an effective nor a secure way of solving a problem. Chavez also evokes fear onto his audience to urge them to change their ways of thinking. These methods assist Chavez in getting his message through to his targeted audience and persuade them to avoid using violence to solve problems.
In his article, Chavez alludes to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Both Gandhi and Dr. King gathered hundreds if not millions of people in protests that were both peaceful, nonviolent, and powerful, to fight for their beliefs, they …show more content…
He states, “Violence does not work in the long run and if it is temporarily successful it replaces one violent form of power with another..” (Lines 75-77). The use of violence is not an efficient way to solve or address problems. It may be the quickest way, but it is only temporary, according to Chavez. He also mentions that resorting to violence only demoralizes workers and makes them forget what their initial goal is. Everyone’s goal at the moment during the time in which Chavez was writing this was the same; there is no reason why they would want a short term solution to their problem. Chavez including the time it would take to resolve the issue brings people down to reality a bit. Why have a problem be solved quickly, but not have it be a permanent solution? He also supports his argument by saying that using violence does not help those who are looking for change. He recalls instances in history that show how using violence is not an effective way to resolve problems of that magnitude. “Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers” (Lines 79-80). Using violence kills and/or harms people on both sides of an argument. Those who die will never see the change they longed for. Cesar Chavez mentions death as a way to get to his audience on a person level; he makes them
In his article, Chavez alludes to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Both Gandhi and Dr. King gathered hundreds if not millions of people in protests that were both peaceful, nonviolent, and powerful, to fight for their beliefs, they …show more content…
He states, “Violence does not work in the long run and if it is temporarily successful it replaces one violent form of power with another..” (Lines 75-77). The use of violence is not an efficient way to solve or address problems. It may be the quickest way, but it is only temporary, according to Chavez. He also mentions that resorting to violence only demoralizes workers and makes them forget what their initial goal is. Everyone’s goal at the moment during the time in which Chavez was writing this was the same; there is no reason why they would want a short term solution to their problem. Chavez including the time it would take to resolve the issue brings people down to reality a bit. Why have a problem be solved quickly, but not have it be a permanent solution? He also supports his argument by saying that using violence does not help those who are looking for change. He recalls instances in history that show how using violence is not an effective way to resolve problems of that magnitude. “Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers” (Lines 79-80). Using violence kills and/or harms people on both sides of an argument. Those who die will never see the change they longed for. Cesar Chavez mentions death as a way to get to his audience on a person level; he makes them