“There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single one I would kill for.” ~Gandhi. Resisting in other methods besides violence is an idea and a way of living that has been believed by a multitude of people for centuries. Nonviolent resistance is a form of attack that cuts just as deep as any other resistance, yet instead of massively destructive weapons doing the damage it is words and peaceful protest. Cesar Chavez makes a persuasive argument for nonviolent resistance in his published article, using two main rhetorical devices: ethos and pathos. Using these rhetorical devices he makes a case for a non destructive, but, in his opinion, equally effective, form of resistance. With the expert wielding of such highly persuasive weapons, …show more content…
Chavez takes a look back in time to convince his readers of the real repercussions of violent resistance, saying, “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers. The people of the land are the ones who give their bodies and don’t really gain that much for it. We believe it is too big a price to pay for not getting anything. Those who espouse violence exploit people. To call men to arms with many promises, to ask them to give up their lives for a cause and then not produce for them afterwards, is the most vicious type of oppression” (Chavez). Chavez forces his readers to emotional anguish through words such as “vicious”, “revolution”, “exploit” and more. These words with extreme negative connotation stir up the hearts of the audience, appealing to their emotions. Chavez explains that the price of violent resistance far outweighs the benefits. With the implication that a great deal of death, destruction, and pain is wrought from violence, Chavez forces the readers to examine the true consequences of violent actions, thus causing them to ask if violent resistance is truly worth it, and if by supporting it, they are condoning the unnecessary death of fellow humans. Death in and of itself is highly emotional in one form of another, playing at the …show more content…
Chavez’s viewpoint, and thus this article, isn’t established in selfishness or self interest, but instead is founded on the belief that life is valuable. Throwing precious life away through use of violent weapons used to solve disagreements is extraordinarily foolish to Chavez, and upon deeper thought, it should be for all. With destructive weapons becoming both more lethal and popular, rethinking nonviolent resistance could save countless innocent lives for all of humanity. As violence and disagreements within counties, countries, and nations multiply, there will be a greater number of deadly causes available for all to join. Death shouldn’t be embraced or glorified, even in war. There should be a war waged on death itself. Nonviolent resistance decreases destruction and saves countless lives, something humanity should