In the 1960s, grapes were picked and sold with pesticides. Farm workers would work with toxins and breathe them daily. Cesar Chavez wanted to raise awareness of the grapes that farmers were harvesting. Even though the grapes contained pesticides, they were still sold in stores, harming buyers. This article explores the original "Wrath Of Grapes" speech, the various thoughts on what people thought about Cesar Chavez's speeches and boycotts, and the impact it had on the community and people. The “Grape Wraths,” exposed the true dangers of grapes, led people to strike, and continue to impact communities today. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayFarm laborers worked long hours every day and received low wages. Before Cesar Chavez created his union, farmworkers led strikes to improve their working conditions. Farmers worked very long hours and received little or no pay. In 1952, Chavez began his journey as a community organizer. This organization fought for change for all farmers. Workers did not have access to drinking water and had to work near pesticides. Strike after strike, their conditions did not improve because "the wine industry refused to accede to workers' demands for better wages and better working conditions." Because of this decision, Chavez wanted to extend his boycott to the entire country. His goal was to get people to stop buying grapes. The wine industry did not want to listen to what Chávez and his organization had to say. He wanted not only to raise awareness of grapes but also of the struggles of farmers. This boycott was everywhere. If grapes were not purchased, demand would decrease. The store would even lower the prices of grapes to encourage people to continue buying them. Due to these low wages and working conditions, Grape Wrath painted a picture of the struggles experienced by farm workers. In 1965, Cesar Chavez organized a strike against grape growers in California's San Joaquin Valley to protest unreasonably low wages. the fishermen received in exchange for their salary. Farmers were fed up with the injustice that was happening, so Cesar Chavez took a stand. However, in response to his peaceful protests, Chavez was unfortunately falsely accused of using "violent and terror tactics" by California Grape and Tree Fruit League President E. L. Barr, Jr. in 1969. In In a letter responding to EL Barr, Jr., Cesar Chavez responded to this accusation and said that he was fighting nonviolently for poor and dispossessed farmers who are simple human beings and that they should have rights that allow them to be treated as such. In his letter he said: “They did it. they were under arms, they were kicked and herded by dogs, they were insulted and ridiculed, they were stripped, chained and imprisoned, they were sprinkled with poisons used in the vineyards, but we did not teach them; to lie down and die, not to flee in shame, but to resist with all human endurance and spirit. In this statement, Chavez shows that although farmers may be mistreated and exploited, they will continue to remain strong and persevere against injustice. The “wrath of the grapes” opened people’s eyes to the truth aboutdamage that the grapes could cause. Chavez wrote this speech to reach millions of people about the largest boycott in history. He wanted to speak to people as one, a family and a community. Farmers are closest to food production (Sumner). of food, there would be no food. Chavez said Environmental Protection Agency experts have informed the community that pesticides and other poisons have been found in different food products that cause cancer, imlutions and birth defects. They also informed our communities that the cause of farm worker illnesses is pesticides. Even though the Environmental Protection Agency has warned the community that people are still buying grapes that have caused illness. Some of these effects may be safe for a healthy man, but they may not be safe for a child or pregnant woman. Amalia Larios, a three-year-old girl, was born with a spinal deformity due to her mother's pesticide exposure. Chavez was able to chart the effects and toxic substances of grapes. Beyond the facts, Chavez wants to touch people by saying: “What we absolutely know is that human lives are worth more than the innocent grapes and grapes on the ground. table disguised as toxic residue hidden deep inside, where washing cannot reach.” The life of a human being is worth more than a few grapes. Chavez said this to let his community know that each of their lives matters, but they can be taken away at any time if they don't put an end to pesticides in grapes. The “Wrath of the Grapes” was a platform to help farmers express their demands. Chávez wrote this speech to be able to explain the dangers of selling grapes, but also to express the demands of farmers. The fruits consumed were all picked by farmers at some point. Picking fruit, especially grapes, while breathing in toxic chemicals. Their water sources are already polluted with pesticides. The demands the farmers wanted to express are "a ban on the most dangerous pesticides used in grape production, a poison testing program sold in stores, free and fair elections for all farmers and good faith negotiations." . The demands aimed to improve working conditions, increase wages and stop selling grapes in stores. If these demands are not met, the grape boycott will continue to reach different states. Chávez called for community engagement to help realize these demands. They all asked for where to dispose of the most dangerous pesticides, a testing program, fair elections and good faith negotiations. Farmers would not accept a negative answer. The “Wrath of the Grapes” managed to spread the news across the country to help realize these demands. It's 1970, and the boycott is back, but this time in the technology industry. Chávez and his people have been organizing for over twenty-three years, but it's not over yet. Chávez's speech and union were non-violent and opened the door for everyone to come and participate in the movement (Steven). The boycott is back with one goal for Chavez: to obtain equal rights for all agricultural workers. If Chavez promised a goal, why is he still continuing? Just because the boycott is over doesn't mean farmers shouldn't get what they deserve. Even if they “come from universities or fields of.