Does violence actually ever accomplish anything? Some people seem to think that it does. Cesar Chavez on the other hand, disagrees. In an article that Chavez wrote for a magazine and made some excellent points and arguments about why nonviolence is so much more effective as opposed to violence. He covers topics such as morality, or lack thereof, shown by violence and nonviolence, as well as honor. Chavez’s rhetorical choices made in favor of his argument seems to have a lasting effect as people today still resort to nonviolent acts of resistance against their government. The first argument made by Cesar was with concern over morality. He believed that nonviolent actions had the ability to show the people you’re opposing that you still have a both just and moral cause. Chavez said that “If we resort to violence, then one of two things will happen: either the violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps death on both sides. Or there will be the total demoralization of the workers” (prompt) To paraphrase, Violence seldom does any good for either side of the dispute in question. Violence generally does not attract followers according …show more content…
Chavez said “Thus, demonstrations and marches, strikes and boycotts are not only weapons against the growers, but our way of avoiding senseless violence that brings no honor to any class or community. The boycott, as Gandhi taught, is the most nearly perfect instruments of nonviolent change, allowing masses of people to participate actively in a cause.” (prompt) One interesting point he made was about honor. Cesar believed that violent acts during a time of resistance were senseless and brought no honor upon any one person involved in the aforementioned acts, and that they could be avoided by participating in nonviolent means such as boycotting, marches, and