All throughout history violence has existed; it has been described in textbooks, in videos, and in the media. Whenever and strikes have occurred, or there was a resistance against oppressive power, have resorted to physical combat. Cesar Chavez, author of an article published in the magazine of a religious organization devoted to helping those in need, looks down upon violence, but is a strong advocate for peace. In this excerpt, he claims that not only is nonviolence necessary for the welfare of society, but is actually more beneficial than violence. Through the use of the persuasive appeals pathos and logos, Chavez alternates between positive and negative diction to show that nonviolent resistance is crucial and powerful when fighting …show more content…
It turns away from emotions and morals and towards logical explanations- as if Chavez is persuading and explaining why peaceful resistance is not only necessary for humanity, but is actually more beneficial than violence. He describes peace as a “strategy” and a “tactic”, and not just as a principle people should use for the good of mankind. He reasons with the readers and explains why success should be earned using nonviolence- for it is not only a matter of honor and integrity, but what will provide the best results. In the excerpt, Chavez explains, “Thus, demonstrations and marches, strikes and boycotts are not only weapons against the growers, but…” He uses the word “weapon” to allow readers to visualize peace as a tool, a means of force and a method used when resisting. He wants the readers to know that techniques such as boycotts or strikes are not weak, but actually extremely successful. Not only does he state that nonviolent resistances are prosperous, but he even explains how: support. People, by the “millions” with consciences, would rather see nonviolence than brutality when fighting for a cause; it is the desire for the underdogs to win against the evil oppressors. Prosperity may be gained through the power of numbers. Peace is appealing and inviting, and it works as an advertisement on its own. Chavez explains that people want “justice” and will support the weak and the poor to gain just that. In addition to reasoning, Chavez uses references to history to further explain his logistics. As said in the passage, “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers.” Here, Chavez basically says why bother fighting physically, when the only ones getting killed or injured are the workers or rebels themselves. By including this phrase, readers are able to look back on past knowledge, and recall previous rebellions; they can understand