Cesar Chavez, labor union organizer and civil rights leader, took the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an opportunity to remind people about the benefits of nonviolent resistance. Chavez published an article in the magazine of a religious organization devoted to helping those in need. In this article, Chavez shares his views on how nonviolent resistance is more effective than violent resistance.
Chavez contracts the outcomes of violence versus nonviolence using an if then format in order to prove nonviolence superior. On lines 17-21, Chavez presents the unwanted outcomes of violence. He argues that once violence begins, it will escalate and result in injury or death on both sides. And, if somehow the violence does not escalate to that point, total
…show more content…
In lines 37-39, Chavez emphasizes the worth of a human life by stating that no matter how much misery or exploitation exists, it is not worth an irreplaceable human life. This counters violence because in violent resistance, lives are lost to the cause. By stating that no cause is worth losing a life, Chavez is able to make his readers stop and think about the worth of one human life. This helps his overall argument because in nonviolent resistance, no lives have to be lost to the cause. Again, this idea is emphasized in lines 74-78. Here, Chavez presents that violence is not effective in the long run. Additionally, he adds that “people suffer from violence”. By stating that violence can be temporarily successful until another form replaces it, Chavez counters the idea that violence solves the issue once and for all. Consequently, his readers will ask themselves, why do we use violence if it is not long lasting success? By getting his reader to ask and answer this question, he is able to make them draw the conclusion that violence is not the superlative