Gandhi Chavez Non Violence Analysis

Cesar Chavez had a view that all races work together for one goal, he had the strikers of Delano take a “solemn vow of nonviolence” (Cesar Chavez Foundation, chavezfoundatio.org, ‘Against All Odds’: Cesar Chavez & the Delano Grape Strike). Chavez followed the examples set forth by M.K. Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by using the nonviolence strategy. However for the first time in American History, Chavez used an untested method when he boycotted using California table grapes. The outcome surfaced an exceptional result of major support from outside the Central Valley. The UFW received support from other unions, church activists, and students and civil rights groups. The step was initiated when Cesar Chavez led a 300-mile march that started in Delano and ended at the State Capital of Sacramento. The union garnered National attention across the country and it gave birth and served as the UFW’s stand against unjust treatment against minority

Cesar Chavez was a civil rights leader and a labor union organizer who delivered a carefully crafted speech by acknowledging the perspective of his audience in order to vouch for the use of nonviolence over violence. While Chavez is arguing against the use of violence, he refrains from blaming anyone who had ever used violence. He manages to gain the trust of the audience by presenting himself as an understanding and compassionate individual, which allows them to be more receptive to his message.

Cesar Chavez addresses a speech that marks history known as the “Wrath of the Grapes Boycott, 1986” in which he expresses his feelings towards farmwork and the worth of humanity. Cesar Chavez main argument was to regulate the use of pesticides in the agricultural industry. The pesticides that were being used in the farms were detrimental to the health of many of the laborers. They polluted the air, water, earth and the health of the people. In no way was this beneficial to anyone 's health. Chavez objective was to boycott the grapes and show the agricultural industry that they deserved to be treated better. Chavez speech was meaningful because he was one of the first mexican american leader who fought for equality amongst farm laborers.

Cesar Chavez informs and inspires readers to follow Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s examples of non-violence through rhetorical terms which help bring about the union's purpose. Chavez uses many rhetorical strategies to encourage his followers to live a very mellow, nonviolent lifestyle. He riles up his resistance of violence through his delicate statements while quoting Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, and other people famous for their stands through nonviolence. Chavez symbolizes the struggle of the growers through the work of the field. He says according to history, “The people of the land are the ones who give their bodies and don’t really gain much for it,” found in lines 81-83.

Even though he is classified serial killer and contract killer he differs from typical serial killers. Unlike your typical serial killer who targets victims with a specific profile and will only target victims with the same specific profile, Mr. Kuklinski did the opposite and his victims were chosen at random. For Kuklinski, killings were only considered business for him and way for him to make money. At no time did he commit murder purposely to seek some type of sexual arousal. Also, he did not kill because he suffered from any psychological dysfunction. Although someone of his kills did occur during the heat of passion, but for the majority of kills that he has accumulated were all hits. In the documentary called The Iceman Confession peers into the life of Richard "the Iceman" Kuklinski. In the HBO documentary on the Kuklinski, the assistant attorney general who prosecuted the

From the start, organizers of the grape boycott aimed at using non-violence to gain the patronage of consumers. In the Proclamation of the Grape Worker, Dolores Huerta states, “We mean to have our peace, and to win it without violence, for it is violence we would overcome-the subtle spiritual and mental violence of oppression, the violence subhuman toil does to the human body”(Huerta). In other words, growers although wrong, often exhibited violence to scare insubordinate workers into complying, yet farmworkers would not succumb to the same wrong by using violence. The most compelling evidence of the violence used against farm workers is described in a new article written by Andrea Castillo. Castillo interviews song writer Augustin Lira, who

Starting in line 17, Chavez concludes that “if we resort to violence then” many lives will be lost or workers will be completely “demoralized”. By using if-then statements, Chavez anticipates routes people will choose when nothing seems to be effective and then follows up with the negative outcome bound to follow a senseless act of violence. The if-then statements stop readers in their tracks and immediately turns their perspective before they have a chance to consider violence as an

Chavez does not wait long to dive into his argument, instead, within the first few paragraphs he makes a very clear and comprehensive claim with the very strategic use of parallel structure when he says, “Nonviolence is more powerful than violence. Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause. Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and that is of crucial importance to win any contest” (Chavez 3). It can be seen here that this use of parallel structure plays a very crucial role in conveying Chavez’s message as it repeats over and over the main idea of the article. In doing so, the main idea becomes really emphasized and in a way drills the focus of the article into the minds of his audience. This provides a very easy and understandable

Multiple times, throughout the text, Chavez uses pathos to appeal emotionally to his audience. Chavez builds a connection and empathy with the readers and persuades them to be people who fight for causes nonviolently. In the sixth paragraph Chaves states that, “men and women who are truly concerned about people are non violent by nature. These people become violent when the deep concern they have for people is frustrated and when they are faced with seemingly insurmountable odds.” Chavez states that everyone who actually cares about people should be nonviolent, that they shouldn’t have to resort to violence because they don’t need it. This quote builds a connection and causes self-reflection for the

To make nonviolence the more logical option, Chavez implements logos and leads readers to believe that violence takes too many sacrifices. After identifying the advantages of nonviolence, he gives the readers two possible conclusions to make about the brutal opposite: “either the violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides, or there will be total demoralization of the workers” (Chavez). Presenting these two unfavorable options uses the logos appeal and persuades the audience to see nonviolence as the more reasonable choice with more promising outcomes. At another point in the article, Chavez tells the audience to simply “examine history” (Chavez). The straightforward statement causes readers to recall violent events of the past and logically recognize them as inferior to the previously mentioned nonviolent protests. This conclusion helps Chavez achieve his purpose by persuading the audience to side with his point of view and support nonviolence. After establishing his argument on sound reasoning, Chavez uses that foundation to employ other rhetorical appeals.

Cesar Chavez championed for unionization of grape farm workers. Chavez employed strikes, fasts, and boycotts to raise awareness for their cause. Violent retaliation was needless to Chavez so much he believed that the most audacious thing to do was to “sacrifice” one’s self “for others” in the name of justice (Alarcon). Cesar Chavez and his associates were targets of increasing acts of violence. By not meeting violence with violence, their cause fell on listening ears. Cesar and the farm worker’s retaliation consisted of increased dedication and more strikes. Drawing from peaceful protest historical figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez was successful with many labor strikes. Chavez could have raised awareness much more rapidly by using violence. However, he “fasted for twenty-five days” for the unerring choice of peaceful protest (Cesar Chavez Gains Grounds for Farmers). Belief in their cause fueled each protester. A single violent outburst from the workers would ripple outward and cause them to lose ground. The farm workers did not make gains without facing hardships. Cesar Chavez’s fast was the result of “increasing advocacy” calling for “violence” among fellow strikers (History.com Staff). As a leader, one must take responsibility for the actions of their supporters. The strikes were beginning to strain. Careful steps were to be taken in order to preserve the strikers’ reason and renew support. Cesar had to challenge their oppressors

In an effort to share the pain people have when they are victims of violence, Chavez utilizes pathos. When it comes to violence Chavez doesn't stand down when they ask who the victims are. “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers.” By striking pity and making the reader reflect, Chavez grabs their attention and pulls them in a and lets them relate if they know or have been victims of violence. Cesar Chavez blames the armed forces for using weapons and machines for use of violence and calls them out for their ways, mocking them as they are doing the opposite, and hurting rather than helping. ”To call men to arms with many promises, to ask them to give up their lives for a cause and then not produce for them afterwards, is the most vicious type of oppression.” Chavez mocking the armed forces allows him to show that by that they are doing is actually the most vicious type of oppression and isn't worth it and needed. Making

All through history governments and empires have been overthrown or defeated primarily by the violence of those who oppose them. This violence was usually successful however, there have been several situations, when violence failed, that protesters have had to turn to other methods. Non-violent protesting never seemed to be the right course of action until the ideology of Mohandas Gandhi spread and influenced successful protests across the world. Non-violent methods were successfully used, most notably, by Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela.

Qualities of the Hero: Comparing Gilgamesh and Odysseus A hero refers to someone who has done something outstanding during their generation. It’s someone who stands out for is extra-ordinary deeds in the society. A hero shapes the life of the future generation. They form the basis of what the future generation can look up to and learn from them.

Chavez begins his rationalization reminding the audience of the vigorous efforts Dr.King displayed in his cause; comparing and contrasting violence against non violence. Chavez explicitly states violence leads to nothing more than “injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides” as non violence is “supportive and crucial.” His variation in diction deriving from descriptions of deaths and injuries as opposed to the righteous dignation convinces readers with what they would prefer. Similarly, his mentioning of violence as being harmful to “both sides” helps bring clarity to a point with lack of bias, and demonstrates how violence is damaging to all equally, regardless of his position on civil rights. He later moves on to once again explicitly stating distinct contrasts.