Nonviolence Chavez Summary

Chavez’s essay relies on many contrasts to support his claim of the superiority of nonviolence. The author consistently contrasts the pitfalls of violence with the benefits that nonviolence creates. He argues that while resorting to violence causes “many injuries and perhaps deaths” as well as “total demoralization of the workers” nonviolence “has exactly the opposite effect” allowing Chavez and his followers to “attract people’s support” and “gather the support of millions who have a conscience.” It makes the audience realize that they lose from violence and all that they stand to gain from nonviolence. Chavez’s contrast between losing and gaining emphatically daws public support to the latter.
Chavez continues to make contrasts throughout …show more content…
King, and moving on to compare and contrast violence and nonviolence. Through very direct sentences he indicates that nonviolence is more powerful than violence. While violence leads to “injuries and perhaps death on both sides total demoralization” non violence is “supportive and crucial.” His contrasting diction from images of deaths and injuries as compared to the wholesomeness of nonviolence helps to convince his listeners about which they would prefer. Likewise his mentioning of violence as being harmful to both sides helps establish an unbiased character and demonstrates how violence is detrimental to anyone, regardless of his position on civil rights.
Throughout the passage Chavez uses the plural pronoun “we”. He contrasts the “we” with “those who will see violence as the shortcut to change.” He portrays the “we” as a righteous sympathetic people, ones who struggle “cannot be more important than one human life” and “who are not blind to frustration, impotence, and anger.” By contrasting a compassionate nonviolent people, who are able to comprehend the importance of even one life, to the almost heartless people advocating for violence, the audience is generously included in the side of justice as a foregone