Jamie Moore
Ms. Elizabeth Munoz
ENGL 1302
JUNE 16, 2014

The Protest Against Grapes

One of the largest protests took place in 1965-1973. There were immigrants who were fighting for better working conditions and farmers looking for ways to cut down expenses. If consumers stop purchasing the grapes, farmers will be forced to remove the harmful pesticides. A speech was given and heard by millions, making consumers question what was in their food. This speech became known as “The Grapes of Wrath”. In the speech the Grapes of Wrath a man named Cesar Chavez spoke about the pesticides that are being used in growing grapes, were harmful to anyone in contact with the grapes.

Cesar Chavez gave the speech of “The Grapes of Wrath” in 1965-1973. He dedicated his life in making a difference for immigrants working conditions. Chavez witnessed Immigrants dying every day because of the harmful pesticides used in agriculture. He organized a union called UFW (United Farm Workers of America) (Monte 10). This was the first effective farm workers’ union in America. Chavez knew that he had to find a way to stop the use of the poisonous pesticides, so he gave his speech for the consumers of the grapes. Consumers did not care what was happening to the immigrants, but they do care about what happens to them. Chavez told consumers they were eating poison and they started to listen. Chavez wanted the consumer to see and feel the dangers through his speech and facts he spoke about. He knew once they heard how the poison pesticides affect everyone, the farmers would finally stop using that poison because consumers would not buy a poisonous grape.

Chavez used logos to strengthen his speech to the consumers. Logos is known as logical evidence, facts used to prove what is said. For example, Chavez talks about the five insecticides used on the grapes to keep insects off. Chavez lists the insecticides giving the poisonous effect of each. “Captan—a proven cancer causing and birth defects producing agent, Dinoseb—a highly toxic herbicide that has caused workers deaths, Methyl Bromide—a more potent mutagen than mustard gas and is highly poisonous and proven carinogen, Parathion and Phosdrin—are highly poisonous insecticids, similar to nerve gas” (Chavez par 16). Another example that Chavez uses is the Enionmental Protection Agency considers pesticide pollution its most urgent problem and noting that virtually everyone is exposed to pesticides reported by the New York Times (Chavez par. 5). Chavez knew that by naming the pesticides used in harvesting the grapes and defining what harm they do to the body people would join in on the protest to stop buying grapes. The knowledge Chavez had on the pesticides would make the truth more believable to the consumers. When consumers stop purchasing the grapes, farmers will be forced remove the harmful pesticides. Farmers will be forced to remove the pesticides because grapes make wine and wine is a large industry that continues to grow. Another example is the “global wine industry is expected to generate almost $292 billion in 2014, reports. At that point market volume should exceed 22.1 billion liters, representing a near 3.5 percent increase in five years. Still wine represents the leading market segment, accounting for almost 81 percent of the global wine market” (Douglas). Chavez wanted to change the conditions of the farm workers and used logos in his speech so the consumers would hear the facts about the dangers of the grapes they are purchasing.

Chavez connects with the consumers by using ethos. Ethos is a way to build credibility and trustworthiness. Chavez in his speech calls the consumers his family. Families are people to trust and listen too (Oswald 88). The consumers will connect with Chavez speech because he has built creditability by calling the consumer family. The word “family” is a strong word and to be considered part of someone’s family this means you trusts them and will take care of them. Another example is when Chavez uses good faith bargaining as one of their demands. Good faith barging is a williness to agree, which shows that he wants to work together and not fight. Chavez knows a change needs to be made quickly. Fighting will just prolong the protest and send out distrust in Chavez to the consumers. Lastly, the author lets the consumers know they fought and won a battle already, he said “but we also won a critical battle for all Americans. Our first contracts to banned the use of DDT, DDE, Dieldrin on crops, years before the federal government acted.” (par. 5) The statement showed an excellent use of ethos, showing creditability and achievement a similar protest. They fought against the federal government and agricultural industry before and won. Statistics have shown that 53 percent of protest will give up because the federal government takes a long time before they change laws (Torres 88). Chavez wasn’t part of the 53 percent that gave in, he continues until changes are made. This show leadership and commitment. Stressing nonviolent methods, Chavez drew attention for his causes via boycotts, marches and hunger strikes. Despite conflicts with the Teamsters union and legal barriers, he was able to secure raises and improve conditions for farm workers in California, Texas, Arizona and Florida (zula).

Chavez needs to connect the consumers and immigrant’s dangers as one. He does this by using pathos. Pathos is a way an author activates emotion. Consumers do not care what happens to immigrants but when Chavez connects them together has one, allows the consumers emotions to feel that no one should died from these poisons. Consumer start to realized that they can die from eating these grapes. The farmers are hurting farm workers and consumers. Consumers are finally realizing we (farmer workers and consumers) have to stand together. For example, Chavez quotes “what we do know absolutely is that human lives are worth more than grapes and that innocent looking grapes on the table may disguise poisonous residues hidden deep inside where washing cannot reach.” (par. 6) Consumers are now not the only ones getting poisoned, but consumers are paying money to eat poison. Chavez connecting the audience through pathos allows both consumers and immigrants to be one; both are dying from this poison. Chavez shares personal stories that he witnesses because of the pesticides. He shared the story of Amalia Larios who will not walk because while her mother was pregnant she was exposed to pesticides while working in the fields harvesting the grapes. He continued with Adrian Espinoza a 7 year old, who is dying of cancer along will 8 other children because their only source of water was polluted with pesticides. He continues with several stories of the lives lost or ruined so farmers can used the pesticides. Our government full aware of the use of the poisonous chemicals and does nothing about it. He tells the consumers he has fought before and won. He asking for consumers and farm workers to all come together as a whole to put an end to all dangerous pesticides.

Chavez speech was full of facts and truth. He was able to justify the protest of removing pesticides. The author used a good mixture of logos (facts), ethos (credibility) and pathos (emotion). Chavez speech had a huge impact on getting farm workers better working condition and consumers poison free grapes. The first contracts were signed in 1966, but were followed by more years of strife. In 1968 Chavez went on a fast for twenty-five days to protest the increasing advocacy of violence within the union. Victory came finally on July 29, 1970, when twenty-six Delano growers formally signed contracts recognizing the ufw and bringing peace to the vineyards (Zula).

Chavez knew he was up against farmers whose only concern was to make a profit and our government who collects taxes and fees from farmers. The author knew this was going to be a big fight and could not win another battle against the farmers with the only reason being that the farmers were killing farm workers. He had to go deeper to the consumer. Chavez knew the danger for the farm workers but was also, knowledgeable on the dangers for the consumers. If the consumers became aware of the poisonous grapes they would not purchase wine or raisins. Without the consumers purchases farmers and the government would be out of thousands of dollars at the time of the Boycott. Chavez was wise in connecting the consumer’s dangers with the farm workers dangers. After connecting the consumer making them apart of the reason for the protest, he asks for donations for the fight against pesticides. He simply says to use the money that was going to be used on wine and raisins and donate the money to stop the poisons used in growing the grapes. Don’t pay to poison your body.

Mote Raul “Cesar Chavez” American Story (2012) 2014 Web 2014 June 8 http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/chavez/aa_chavez_subj.html Zula Michael“Wine Industry Market Research & Statistics”Reporterlink.com Jan. 2001. Web 2014 June 8
http://www.reportlinker.com/ci02017/Wine.html