Response: Nonviolent Resistance, By Cesar Chavez

The cycle of oppression, violent rebellion, and oppressor has occurred in different circumstances and forms since the beginning of organized society. In a well-crafted essay, Cesar Chavez develops an argument about nonviolent resistance as a mean to achieve equality and respect in society. Chavez argues for this strategy by using historical references, logical fallacies, and examples. Chavez starts the passage with a reference to Martin Luther King Jr and how his life was a prime example of positive working nonviolent resistance that resulted in civil rights for millions. This segues in to Chavez’s current situation of farm workers’ rights and makes him seem more credible and trustworthy in the process, because he is historically and socially educated about the process of
This makes the reader pity the people who perform acts of violent resistance because of the tone of the explanation- it is like they do not know better. “…but we are not blind to the feelings of frustration, impatience, and anger…” This also makes the reader feel superior and cements the concept that Chavez’s point is correct. This also appeals to the reader’s moral sense, and this is at the heart of Chavez’s argument. Nonviolent resistance is appealing on a base level because it is presented as morally just and as what a good person would do, while violent resistance is presented as immoral and basically wrong. The statement “People suffer from violence. (77)” is a prime example of the ground level building blocks that are assumed to exist for Chavez’s rhetorical strategies to work on the mind of the reader. If the reader was a psychopath and cared nothing for lives lost, the argument for nonviolent resistance would not work from a moral