Many people believe and live by the saying “eye for an eye”; a principle of justice derived from the Bible. The principle essentially suggests that whatever offense a person does to someone, the same offense should be done to them. By this line of thinking, if somebody is violent against you, you should fight back with that same violence. The truth is, combating violence with violence can lead to a cycle of ongoing violence, not justice. At the end of Cesar Chavez’s article, he writes, “When victory comes through violence, it is a victory with strings attached. If we beat the growers at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death.” Throughout his article, Chavez uses pathos, metaphors, and a just tone, …show more content…
To achieve this, Chavez connects and sympathizes with his audience: “We advocate militant nonviolence as our means of achieving justice for our people, but we are not blind to the feelings of frustration, impatience and anger which seethe inside every farm worker.” This line evokes feelings of justice because it convinces people to advocate for the causes they feel passionately about. He also uses adjectives like frustration, impatience, seethe, and anger to drive their motivations. Chavez also uses an admonishing manner to convince his readers: “Our conviction is that human life is a very special possession given by God to man and that no one has the right to take it for any reason or for any cause, however just it may be.” This line allows the reader to be inspired and rally for the civil cause. He does this by expressing the importance of what could be taken from them. He states that life is special, and uses the phrase “given by God” to emphasize this, also connecting with the faith that a lot of his audience can resonate with. By doing this, it makes the reader feel inclined to defend the lives being threatened. In achieving this, Chavez successfully connects with his audience emotionally, convincing readers to join his