Cesar Chavez, in his essay pertaining to the Floridian farm worker’s movement for more just treatment, argues for the importance of nonviolent resistance as a civil, moral, and powerful method of promoting social change. Chavez supports his argument by illustrating the inevitable consequences of violence opposed to nonviolence and rationally explaining the effectiveness of nonviolence as a catalyst for change. The author’s purpose is to illustrate the overwhelming advantages of nonviolent resistance, as opposed to violent and destructive resistance, in order to persuade people of all wealth classes that the most civil and beneficial way to address problems in which reformation is needed, specifically the farm workers’ cause, is aggressively
…show more content…
Chavez sensibly incorporates the inevitable negative effects of violent resistance to illustrate to the reader its inferiority in comparison to nonviolence. Violence, argues Chavez, will result in, “many injuries and perhaps death on both sides,” and eventually the, “total demoralization,” (19-20) of the involved persons, in his specific case, the Floridian farm workers. The incorporation of the results violence produces is significant because it emphasizes the effectiveness of nonviolence as a way of promoting humane change. Chavez also utilizes rhetorical question to highlight the negative consequences violence is accompanied by. Through asking the reader, “Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” (78-79), the possible outcome of a violent farmer worker’s movement can be compared to the fatal results of previous violent resistance examples and the laborer mortality it causes. The author makes the inquiry so readers are discouraged from partaking in violent affairs due to realizing their life may be lost because of such actions. The explanation of a hypothetical violent struggle being a, “mechanical thing” (71), epitomizes the atrocity associated with violence. This description is significant because it typifies the loss of “regard for human beings,” (70), violent actions can cause, which in turn, sways the reader
Chavez sensibly incorporates the inevitable negative effects of violent resistance to illustrate to the reader its inferiority in comparison to nonviolence. Violence, argues Chavez, will result in, “many injuries and perhaps death on both sides,” and eventually the, “total demoralization,” (19-20) of the involved persons, in his specific case, the Floridian farm workers. The incorporation of the results violence produces is significant because it emphasizes the effectiveness of nonviolence as a way of promoting humane change. Chavez also utilizes rhetorical question to highlight the negative consequences violence is accompanied by. Through asking the reader, “Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” (78-79), the possible outcome of a violent farmer worker’s movement can be compared to the fatal results of previous violent resistance examples and the laborer mortality it causes. The author makes the inquiry so readers are discouraged from partaking in violent affairs due to realizing their life may be lost because of such actions. The explanation of a hypothetical violent struggle being a, “mechanical thing” (71), epitomizes the atrocity associated with violence. This description is significant because it typifies the loss of “regard for human beings,” (70), violent actions can cause, which in turn, sways the reader