How Did Cesar Chavez Demonstrate The Success Of A Nonviolent Movement

The idea of change is to make development, or advance toward a better future; however, to create change, society tend to fall under bloodshed. The American Revolution was a step to freedom, but the cause for independence has killed thousands of innocent lives. The result was seen again in the Civil War when the abolishment of slavery ended in destruction. The Revolution and Civil War might differ for whom they’re fighting for, but are similar with their use of violent. Understanding that violent is never the answer, Cesar Chavez, a labor union organizer and civil rights leader, seek a better approach to create change. On the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King, Chavez wrote a speech about the nonviolent resistance and in his argument,

At the beginning of his speech, Chavez recalled “Dr. King’s entire life was an example of power and nonviolence…” which, “...gives us the best possible opportunity to recall...our struggles…” (1-6). By using Dr. King as a principle of nonviolence, Chavez reassures that this honorable path will lead to a better future for all. Chavez strengthened the beliefs in nonviolence by referring to the “...boycott, as Gandhi taught, is...allowing masses of people to participate…” (61-64). Violence is characterized by the diversion among a group of people and by using Gandhi's teaching, Chavez revealed that unity is the key to overcoming these differences. Overall, history was examined because “...who gets killed in the case of violent revolution… the poor, the workers…” (78-82). Chavez foresees the future by recalling the irony of power that mislead the poor. History is full of loss, but to achieve peace, society must follow the examples of the reformers and learn from their success, as well as their

When “...victory comes through violence...victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death,” (65-68). By naming the consequences of violent, Chavez conveys the importance of maintaining a good cause for a movement. Chavez proceed to contradicts the purpose of a nonviolent change by questioning “...if...we are committed to nonviolence only as as a strategy...then...our alternative is to turn violent…” (33-35). As he challenged the direction that nonviolent is put in use, Chavez shows his understanding of how violent is develope. Rather than rejecting the perspective, in which nonviolent fails, Chavez continues to reflect over how “...violence will be escalated...or there will be total demoralization…” (17-20). Through Chavez’s exploration of the negativity in violence and the possibility of success in nonviolence, society retain an idea on how to prevent