Peace is the Answer

In an excerpt from Cesar Chavez’s article that draws from Martin Luther King Jr.’s promotion of non-violent resistance, it asserts that nonviolence is the only enforcer for sociopolitical change. First, Chavez explains the philosophy of the farm worker’s movement which holds the belief that it is totally immoral to take another human’s life for any personal gain-- not only is it cruel, but it denies success. Furthering the argument, Chavez denounces violence as a temporary and inefficient oppressor. His persuasive juxtaposition, diction, and syntax forces his audience to believe the true course of action is to peacefully march, strike, and protest to attain victory.

First, Chavez claims that nonviolence is the most successful approach to reaching an agreement with an opposing group, especially in a class conflict, like the farm worker’s movement. Chavez drills his belief that “nonviolence is more powerful than violence” in his seemingly distinct contrast between, “Nonviolence supports you… Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive” and “If we resort to violence… either the violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries… or there will be total demoralization of the workers.” Here, he gives his readers no choice but to agree with his valid, and previously underrepresented argument for nonviolence.

Taking the peaceful road inherently gives those fighting for their beliefs the advantage, as using weapons automatically categorizes a group as “on defense”, and thus, they easily become victims. However, Chavez does not fail to point out that nonviolence is oftentimes a struggle to maintain especially when, “frustration, impatience, and anger seethe inside every farm worker.” By showing his audience the perspective of the farm workers, Chavez highlights just how hard it is to abstain from violence, making these poor rural dwellers seem even more deserving of equality. Such powerful syntax highlights the complex attitude that Chavez so clearly displays: while violence has the potential to control us, we must use self-control to advance any further in our struggle. To add, when the general public sees “the poor struggling nonviolently against great odds,” they will be more inclined to support the protests positively. However oppressed some are, and however great they want to submit to bloodshed, they must defy society’s norms with nonviolence.

Chavez also persuades his headstrong argument for civil disobedience by stating the obvious, yet arguably most important, “People suffer from violence.” His most compelling question, “Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” blunty answered with, “The poor, the workers” propels his assertion that violence fosters those already suffering to suffer more. Clearly, the viciously infinite cycle that defines torture, war, and weapons, can only be stopped using the nonviolent approach. As war progresses, the poor become even more diminished, losing lives and limbs to add to their inequities. Such depressing truths reiterate Chavez’s beginning theory that, “violence brings no honor to any class of community,” emphasizing just how important for communities to choose peace.
Overall, Chavez, using powerful contrast, dark diction, and truthful syntax, successfully develops his lasting argument that violence resolves little conflict within a group, and that nonviolence is the only way for the oppressed suffer less damage and ultimately, rise above their oppressors.