Violence In The Proclamation Of The Grape Worker

In his first large protest, Cesar went on a long march. When reflecting upon the march Chavez remarked that, “We marched alone at the beginning, but today, we count men of all creeds, nationalities, and occupations in number.” (Chavez, 2) From the very beginning, Chavez brought groups of people together by uniting his small group of protesters with a group of Filipino strikers to create the United Farm Workers. Uniting his group of protesters with the group of striking Filipino workers allowed the protest to become bigger, and therefore more successful. The large numbers also attracted more attention from the media. By uniting groups of strikers, Chavez created a strong protest organization that lasts even today. Another essential group of people Chavez got to join his cause were the consumers. Chavez and his partner Dolores Huerta once wrote, “We called upon our fellow men, and were answered by consumers.” (Chavez, Huerta, 1) Consumers helped the protest by participating in a grape boycott, and did not buy grapes until the grape workers’ needs were met. With this boycott, Chavez tried to weaken the business of the grape growers until they complied, and it worked. When thousands of citizens would not by grapes, the media covered the issue. Through the media coverage, the boycott spread rapidly, uniting people from all over the United States. With the popularity of the boycott, the protest evolved into not just a protest, but a civil rights

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.

To make nonviolence the more logical option, Chavez implements logos and leads readers to believe that violence takes too many sacrifices. After identifying the advantages of nonviolence, he gives the readers two possible conclusions to make about the brutal opposite: “either the violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides, or there will be total demoralization of the workers” (Chavez). Presenting these two unfavorable options uses the logos appeal and persuades the audience to see nonviolence as the more reasonable choice with more promising outcomes. At another point in the article, Chavez tells the audience to simply “examine history” (Chavez). The straightforward statement causes readers to recall violent events of the past and logically recognize them as inferior to the previously mentioned nonviolent protests. This conclusion helps Chavez achieve his purpose by persuading the audience to side with his point of view and support nonviolence. After establishing his argument on sound reasoning, Chavez uses that foundation to employ other rhetorical appeals.

Throughout Chavez’s speech, he uses the rhetorical strategy of logos to provoke farmers and consumers of grapes to join the movement for farmers rights and against rights. For example, when listing facts about the negative effects of pesticides, Chavez states “And a new study shows pesticides used in growing may be responsible for the illness of over 300,000 of the nation's 4 million farm workers.” (Chavez, Wrath

In the excerpt, Cesar Chavez, labor union organizers and civil rights leader, discusses how nonviolent resistance to problems in society easily resolves a situation better than violent protest. Throughout his speech, he uses many rhetorical strategies to argue his view on nonviolent resistance. Chavez’ use of ethos, logos, and pathos, creates his passionate attitude towards nonviolent resistance.

Cesar Chavez, a civil rights leader fighting for improving pay and working conditions of farmers, employs the use of nonviolence resistance in his role as a leader of the United Farm Workers. As a child, Chavez and his family worked as farmers on a field as migrant workers who were most likely treated in an unjust manner and thus, he dedicated his life to improving the conditions for all farmers. To honor Martin Luther King Jr. on the 10th anniversary of his death, Chavez wrote to a religious magazine that helps people in need about the benefits of nonviolent resistance. Throughout his letter, Chavez applies rhetorical devices such as pathos, diction, and juxtaposition to persuade and inform people about how powerful and effective nonviolence techniques can be for civil rights.

In enjoying, as well as closely examining, an article written by Cesar Chavez on the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which was published in a magazine of a religious organization devoted to helping those in need, it becomes evident that Chavez, through the use of many rhetorical devices and literary tools, feels very strongly on the thought of nonviolence being superior to violence. According to the labor leader and civil rights activist, nonviolence will always conquer violence, which Chavez makes clear through the use of rhetorical tricks such as allusions, specific word choice and sentence structure, strategic tone and by appealing to the values of his audience.

The mild people of California find in the Okies what they have yet to experience - fear and desperation. Sensing the extent to which the migrants are willing to work, the locals begin to fear for their own jobs, and most importantly, for their own property. In fearful defense, they attack the Okies as marauders who mean to destroy both populations through their desperation. This fear transforms into hostility, which reveals itself in the story through the deputies and managers who abuse and assault the Joads, as well as other migrant families in the workers'

Acknowledging his consideration for both sides of the argument and providing his definition of nonviolence allows Chavez’s listeners to trust him because he has carefully described his own ideas while also considering perspectives contradictory to his own. Violence is described to result in “...many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides…” as well as “...total demoralization of the workers” (ln 19-21). Nonviolence is described as the opposite of violence. Nonviolence will be there to “...[support] you if you have a just and moral cause” (ln 13-14). Providing a clear

When appealing to the reader’s reasoning, Chavez uses ethos to state that nonviolence has a tactical advantage against oppression. At the same time, he provides explanations as to how violence is detrimental to their cause. He states that nonviolence “provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive” (Chavez, 14-16) and responding with nonviolence “will attract people’s support” (Chavez, 22-24). He also states that resorting to violence will either “cause the violence to be escalated” or create “total demoralization of the workers” (Chavez, 18-21). He contrasts the two points of view to emphasize the positives of nonviolence, while

“Letter from Delano”, by Cesar Chavez, the writer is attempting to perform this impossible feat on E.L. Barr Jr., the president of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League. Throughout his life, 1927 to 1993, Chavez was a prominent civil rights activist who fought for the rights of farm workers. He performed nonviolent protests including marches, boycotts, and hunger strikes. One famous boycott was the Grape Strike, in which Cesar urged Americans to buy grapes from foreign places in order to bring attention to the plight of field workers. By 1969, when the letter was written, Chavez had already co-founded the National Farm Workers Association. His goal was to fight for better treatment, increased pay, and improved working conditions. His nonviolent methods were extremely similar to the protests of Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated in 1968, over the rights of African Americans. In the letter, Cesar Chavez is specifically addressing claims, made by the California Grape and Tree Fruit League, of a violent protest performed by the farm workers. Throughout the letter, Chavez confronts the shocking accusations, explains his use of nonviolent methods, and emphasizes the purpose of his protests. He strives to make the president understand the plight of the workers and view their protests as a product of the worker’s determination for change, not as violent and personal attacks that

In a source by U.S. News and World Report, it was said that the boycott’s effects made grape shipments decline drastically. In some parts, it was enormous, like in New York City, the grape sales were down 50 percent (Doc D). Chavez helped and lead boycotts against the grape workers, so the sales went down, like they wanted it to be. Their goal was to stop people from buying grapes grown by the mean grape growers. Gleeful, in August 1970, Chavez signed a contract with 26 major grape growers. This contract stated that about 75 percent of the state’s grape growers were now organized by the UFW. The contract also states that the workers be paid more, and 20 more cents a box during their harvest time (Doc D). Chavez fought so well and strong that they eventually achieved the rights that they deserve, thanks to him and the people involved in his master plan for equality and fair rights. Not only did they organize lots of major grape fields, but they gave the workers more money so they can live better. Chavez fought for the right thing, that made him an effective

Cesar Chavez championed for unionization of grape farm workers. Chavez employed strikes, fasts, and boycotts to raise awareness for their cause. Violent retaliation was needless to Chavez so much he believed that the most audacious thing to do was to “sacrifice” one’s self “for others” in the name of justice (Alarcon). Cesar Chavez and his associates were targets of increasing acts of violence. By not meeting violence with violence, their cause fell on listening ears. Cesar and the farm worker’s retaliation consisted of increased dedication and more strikes. Drawing from peaceful protest historical figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez was successful with many labor strikes. Chavez could have raised awareness much more rapidly by using violence. However, he “fasted for twenty-five days” for the unerring choice of peaceful protest (Cesar Chavez Gains Grounds for Farmers). Belief in their cause fueled each protester. A single violent outburst from the workers would ripple outward and cause them to lose ground. The farm workers did not make gains without facing hardships. Cesar Chavez’s fast was the result of “increasing advocacy” calling for “violence” among fellow strikers (History.com Staff). As a leader, one must take responsibility for the actions of their supporters. The strikes were beginning to strain. Careful steps were to be taken in order to preserve the strikers’ reason and renew support. Cesar had to challenge their oppressors

By the end of the program, farm labor unions began to form which eventually led to the abolishment of laws stating it was illegal to organize farm labor. This lead the way to the grape strikes in California and the boycotts in stores, lead by Filipino farm workers. After the first strike several various organizations began to form and led similar movements around the country. Through the 1960s to the 1980s, Cesar Chavez was a major inspiration to such movements and organizations. One of the most notable protests was when Chavez and the UFW marched from the Coachella Valley to the Mexican

The abuse of power in order to make a profit is a prominent theme today in current events and throughout the novel The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. Today, people in positions of power use that power to take advantage of their workers and customers in order to benefit themselves. In The Grapes of Wrath, most of the Joads’ problems stem from people using the power they have to deceive them. Economic abuse of power is not only prevalent today, but is also prevalent in The Grapes of Wrath as shown through the bank owners, salesmen, brokers, and the landowners.