La Guerra Sucia La Guerra Sucia is the worst war in Argentina’s history. The war started in 1974 and ended around 1983. During this period military and security forces known as the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (Triple A) hunted down and killed left-wing guerrillas, political dissidents, and anyone believed to be associated with socialism. 30,000 plus people disappeared and taken to detention centers where they were tortured and eventually killed.
Acclaimed activist and political leader, Cesar Chavez, in his article, attempts to convince the laboring class and those in need in America to restrain from any use of violence during their struggle. Throughout his article Chavez is able to maintain a predominantly straightforward positive tone in order to motivate his audience to lean more towards a non-violent approach to their problems. His purpose is to persuade the laboring class in America to abstain from any use of violence during their struggle. Chavez further elaborates his desire and purpose for his followers by utilizing the use of pathos and logos. Chavez is in the mentality that nonviolence is the only way his followers- the rest of the labor union- will achieve their goals and abstain from any injuries or harm that could possibly happen to them.
Affirmed by the anaphora of repeated communal diction, there is no mistaking that his point is applicable to all. The “we”s and “our”s do more than just label his audience though; Chavez utilizes these two powerful words to assert his role within the movement, not as a leader or just an ally, but as one of the common people affected. For Chavez, the problems are personal; the farm workers’ movement and the fight for civil rights is much more than a cause he believes in: it is a struggle for justice that he has devoted his entire life to. Within his article, Chavez’s passion, developed over years of experience with hardship and resistance, comes through with charged statements such as “If we fail, there are those who will see violence as the shortcut to change”. By inserting himself into the narrative of change as one small piece and utilizing his past experience to ardently support his cause, Chavez successfully emphasizes how by working together within, the community can achieve the common goal of non-violent resistance and change for the poor
He insists on the fact that inhumane vengeance will lead to injury and death, as well as “demoralization”. This argument is greatly supported by the death of Dr. King Jr; his view of nonviolence helped to grow and mature the farm worker’s movement. Civil workers are guilted into supporting their fallen hero in order to fulfill his dying wish. Chavez instructs them to “overcome… [their] frustrations” and support their causes through methods of peaceful protests. Chavez, appealing to their sense of emotion, manages to persuade a disconnected society by desperately wanting to avenge Dr. King’s untimely
In february 1968, during a long strike against grape groupers, Chavez went a 25-day hunger strike. Soon, Senator Robert F. Kennedy announced his run fr President and came to support Chavez on March 11,the day Chavez ended his fast. I think that in order for a democracy to have caring and hardworking citizens then they must have three types of qualities which are personally responsible, participatory and justice oriented citizens. It is very important for a democracy to have citizens who are personally responsible. For a citizen to become more responsible they must act responsible all the time and do things that need to be done and taken care of.
In Cesar Chavez's article, he argues that nonviolent resistance is better and more efficient than violent resistance. He feels very strongly toward this belief, because of the mistreated farmers, and hopes that these farmers will civilly resist. Chavez refers to Martin Luther King Jr. and adds on to his point towards nonviolence resistance. Chavez publishes this article in a magazine because it is the tenth anniversary of the assassination of King, who Chavez strongly admires. Chavez uses a comparing technique to discuss violent and nonviolent resistance, a mix of appeals to ethos and pathos, and strong diction to emphasize the importance of the current problems his society is facing.
To begin with, Chavez uses logos in his speech through a rhetorical question, “Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers.” The people who are arguing for violent revolutions are mostly poor workers whom Chavez refers to. Chavez uses logic to show these people that if they use violent revolts, they are most likely the ones going to be killed which for the most part will deter the people who are aiming for this. Another appeal Chavez uses is ethos to show everyone as people we are expected to do the right thing.
One of Chavez’s most well-known protests is the Delano Grape Strike. Chavez is well known for this individual strike because he was specifically asked from the Filipinos, who were the peoples that were affected so they started the strike because of bad pay (90 cents an hour) and horrible working conditions. Cesar accepted the invitation from the Filipinos because he felt as though this strike could have been helpful towards his protesting causes. This strike focused on the pay, working conditions, and the land owner’s violent actions towards the farm workers. Cesar new the fight for these rights was not going to end anytime soon.
In the article Cesar Chavez stated that, “ Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause. Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive,and that is a crucial importance to win any contest. 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 total demoralization of the workers.” you see what Cesar Chavez is trying to say is that when it comes to violence if you resort to non violence, than most people will support you because you have a definite win and this way nobody is gonna get hurt or die in the
In 1965, a Filipino union group called The Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee “struck when the Delano grape growers cut the pay rates during harvest” (Rick Tejada-Flores PBS). Because of this, the strike went on, and Chavez became the leader, according to PBS. As a result, the grape strike began and lasted for five years (Encyclopedia of World Biography). Because Chavez learned writings from St. Francis and Gandhi, he decided to put that into play. According to PBS, Chavez’ group would fight without the use of violence.
Fuelled by hunger and the fact that less than 2% had the vote, 18 people were killed and 700 were left seriously injured as a result of these peaceful pro-democracy and anti-poverty protesters. From the escalation of a peaceful assembly to a massacre, parliament again began to feel the pressure and so realised that reform was needed to prevent any further
“ Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers. The people of the land are the ones who give their bodies and don’t really gain that much for it.” This conveys Chavez’s argument because using violence will only lead to suffering by the poor just because they are fighting for something that they believe in.
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.
The citizens go against the governments ideas and thoughts. One of the great problems with rebellion is everyone gets hurt in one way or another, the government loses control and the citizens risk making things worse for themselves if the government regains their control. In the novel, Day gets a death sentence and riots start because to the citizens of lower class that are treated poorly, Day is their symbol of hope because he always did what he wanted and didn’t follow the governments laws. Therefore, if he’s gone, their hope leaves with him. “I get a good look at some of the protestors as we pass the last monitor, the ones clustered together under the street lights.
At the core of the First Amendment, a promise is made by The Constitution of the United States, stating “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Cornell University Law School, 2015). It is a promise made to all citizens that they will be given the right to practice their beliefs and join together in protest or peacefully assemble. This ability for everyone on the nation - even the minorities - to make themselves heard is an essential part of a functioning democracy (American Civil Liberties Union, 2015). Time and
