Analysis Of Cesar Chavez 's ' Wrath Of The Grapes Boycott '
1234 Words5 Pages
Cesar Chavez addresses a speech that marks history known as the “Wrath of the Grapes Boycott, 1986” in which he expresses his feelings towards farmwork and the worth of humanity. Cesar Chavez main argument was to regulate the use of pesticides in the agricultural industry. The pesticides that were being used in the farms were detrimental to the health of many of the laborers. They polluted the air, water, earth and the health of the people. In no way was this beneficial to anyone 's health. Chavez objective was to boycott the grapes and show the agricultural industry that they deserved to be treated better. Chavez speech was meaningful because he was one of the first mexican american leader who fought for equality amongst farm laborers.…show more content… Later Chavez became a national leader and resigned in 1962 to devote his time to farm laborers (“Cesar Chavez”). “During this period Chavez encountered the conditions that he would dedicate his life to changing: wretched migrant camps, corrupt labor contractors, meager wages for backbreaking work, bitter racism (Cesar Chavez).” One of biggest factors was the use of pesticides which was harming the health of the farm workers.
This was motivation for Chavez to rise up and do something for the farmworkers. The pesticides that were being used were harmful to the workers. This addresses the credibility of being a first hand witness because of pesticide use. In that same year Cesar Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association that later became United Farm Workers (“The Story Of Cesar Chavez”). Chavez informed the people of the working conditions and the bad pay. Chavez strategy was to have non violent marches, strikes and fasts. He encouraged the Farm Workers be be nonviolent and do things right. The conditions they were working in where harmful to their health because of the pesticides. The marches, strikes, and fasts led to a success in the grape boycott In 1970. “Table grape growers at long last signed their first union contracts granting workers better pay, benefits and protection (Kim).” But 20 years later the fight started again. This led for to a second boycott