If By Cesar Chaves Summary
Violence is not something that should be taken lightly, as there are many consequences that go along with it. Cesar Chavez understands these consequences and actively tries to avoid them. Chaves, a civil rights activist, writes this article to emphasize nonviolence over violence as a modem for an authentic change.
Chaves applies the "if...then" structure throughout his article to illustrate the importance of nonviolence. Chaves talks about how "if" the people resort to violence "then" there will be major consequences like injuries, death, or the "demoralization of workers." By saying this, Chaves shows the people that a violent start will lead to a violent end and that should be prevented at all costs. This shows that nonviolence would have a better resolution than violence. Chaves also uses this structure by giving examples of how nonviolence will bring in supporters, people with a …show more content…
He agrees that id nonviolence does fail then, yes, the alternative is violence, but he states that "It cannot be more important than one human life." By stating this, Chaves shows that he understands the other sides argument about violence. He agrees that at some point violence is inevitable but he assets that it should still be prevented at all costs, if possible. If there is no need for violence, especially if the violence might kill someone, then the people should not implement it at all. He uses his understanding of how the people feel to connect with them to help them see his side more clearly. His statement that "we are not blind to the feelings of frustration, impatience and anger," shows how he does acknowledge and sympathizes with the people's feelings. However it does not mean that they have to resort to violence right away. Chaves does understand the struggle that the farm workers are going through, but he also advocates for nonviolence instead of the more dangerous path,
Chaves applies the "if...then" structure throughout his article to illustrate the importance of nonviolence. Chaves talks about how "if" the people resort to violence "then" there will be major consequences like injuries, death, or the "demoralization of workers." By saying this, Chaves shows the people that a violent start will lead to a violent end and that should be prevented at all costs. This shows that nonviolence would have a better resolution than violence. Chaves also uses this structure by giving examples of how nonviolence will bring in supporters, people with a …show more content…
He agrees that id nonviolence does fail then, yes, the alternative is violence, but he states that "It cannot be more important than one human life." By stating this, Chaves shows that he understands the other sides argument about violence. He agrees that at some point violence is inevitable but he assets that it should still be prevented at all costs, if possible. If there is no need for violence, especially if the violence might kill someone, then the people should not implement it at all. He uses his understanding of how the people feel to connect with them to help them see his side more clearly. His statement that "we are not blind to the feelings of frustration, impatience and anger," shows how he does acknowledge and sympathizes with the people's feelings. However it does not mean that they have to resort to violence right away. Chaves does understand the struggle that the farm workers are going through, but he also advocates for nonviolence instead of the more dangerous path,