The plea for nonviolence echoed from various civil rights leaders during the 1960’s. The most memorable however was Dr.Martin Luther King, he inspired generations to follow the path of not expressing your aggression. Although when he was assassinated, many followers desired revenge against the massacre. Cesar Chavez disagreed with the violent outcries and argued that his fellow oppressed members of society should follow MLK’s belief by remaining nonviolent. Chavez begins by introducing MLK’s principle of nonviolence and then he brings up the other decision of violence. By using compare and contrast, he juxtapositions the option of the powerful and “moral cause” of nonviolence against the escalated and suffering effects of violence. He uses compare and contrast throughout his argument to illustrate that violence will lead to “many injuries and perhaps …show more content…
He applied cause and effect to prove the outcome MLK’s followers could have if they stick to the nonviolent root. He argues the basic ideal that “people suffer from violence” and he gives the effects of violence which are the loss of strength, a person’s actions become mechanical, and the loss of regard towards human beings. Chavez then utilizes rhetorical questions to allow the audience to ponder why poor workers would commit violence without getting anything satisfactory in return? This creates the overwhelming decision that there is no point for a small poor farmer to commit these horrendous acts of violence if they are just receiving bloodshed in return. He ends with some final empowering statements to build his followers stamina; he states that “the rich may have money, but the poor have time”. He does this in order to conclude by implying that the oppressed will continue to fight for their equal rights, because their cause is moral and will lead to a victory