Imagine working in the hot sun or being apart of child labor. You would be exhausted or want to escape. You would want better food because they provide you with so little. You would have been wishing for a better life. No one wants to work at a young age. They just want someone who cares for them. However, two people fought to stop these unfair laws. The biography “Mother Jones: Fierce Fighter for Workers’ Rights” by Judith Pinkerton Josephson is about an elder who is named Mary Harris Jones. She protested against child labor because these children were injured and she thought it was unfair. The Cesar Chavez Foundation (CCF) wrote the biography “About Cesar” to tell us how he fought for the farmers rights to give them fair laws. Both of these people fought for justice because they wanted better rights for workers. However, Cesar Chavez made a larger impact on the world we live in. …show more content…
In the first place, Mother Jones drew attention to children because she was against child labor.
She wanted to change the law for the unfairness of the children. The text states, “They would march the mill children all the way to the president of the United States-Theodore Roosevelt.” (Josephson, 6). The author explains what she is planning to do to hopefully change the mind of President Roosevelt. The author writes, “Their bodies were bone-thin, with hollow chests.” …”’some with their hands off, some with the thumb missing, some with their fingers off at the knuckles’ - victims of mill accidents.” (Josephson, 5). This means that the children weren’t being fed properly and they were injured while working. Some of the children lost body parts because the job was too
dangerous. In addition, Cesar Chavez fought for the rights of farmworkers and demanded better working conditions. The author wrote, “Strikes and boycotts, marches and fasts, victories and defeats.” (CCF, 24). The author proves the different ways Cesar fought for the rights of farmworkers. Even though he lost some arguments, he had victories so he kept on fighting until the law was made better for the farmworkers. Another example is, “The first union contracts requiring rest periods, toilets in fields, clean drinking water, hand washing facilities, ...” (CCF, 24). The quote shows how Cesar demanded for better working conditions. He didn’t like the way they made him farm. He wanted to be safe instead of unsafe. Cesar wanted to be treated fair. Although this may be true, Cesar Chavez made a bigger impact on the world. In fact, more than fifty-thousand people attended his funeral. This means a lot of people wanted to show their respects by attending his funeral. Then again, he made people feel important. They didn’t think their jobs were important but Cesar made sure they felt important. The final reason Cesar made a bigger impact is because he left a legacy behind. The world made a holiday in his honor because of what he did.They even named things or places after him. Even though Cesar Chavez and Mother Jones made a difference, Cesar Chavez made a bigger impact on the world. Mother Jones may have had publicity on child labor, but Cesar Chavez had a larger publicity on farmers rights. He became known around the whole world and was honored. A lot of people attended his funeral which proves he was noticed more than Mother Jones. Mother Jones got what she was fighting for years later. However, Cesar Chavez got what he wanted during the time he was fighting for the farmers and his own rights. Even though mother Jones fought for child labor and Cesar fought for farm workers rights, Cesar made a bigger difference to millions of people.
What would one expect to be the sentiment of a young women who worked in the Lowell textile mills? It is just such a depressing story; and the sad heroines are the young women of Lowell - Lucy Larcom- who Stephen Yafa portrays in his excerpt “Camelot on the Merrimack.” A perception through the eyes of a thirteen-year-old Lucy Larcom reveals that, “For her and the other young girls, the long and tedious hours they spent tending to demanding machines robbed them of their childhood.” The imagery in “Camelot on the Merrimack,” from Big Cotton by Stephen H. Yafa disclose the working conditions in those sordid mills.
1. Dolores Huerta was a member of Community Service Organization (“CSO”), a grass roots organization. The CSO confronted segregation and police brutality, led voter registration drives, pushed for improved public services and fought to enact new legislation. Dolores Huerta wanted to form an organization that fought of the interests of the farm workers. While continuing to work at CSO Dolores Huerta founded and organized the Agricultural Workers Association in 1960. Dolores Huerta was key in organizing citizenship requirements removed from pension, and public assistance programs. She also was instrumental in passage of legislation allowing voters the right to vote in Spanish, and the right of individuals to take the driver’s license examination in their native language. Dolores Huerta moved on to working with Cesar Chavez. Dolores was the main person at National Farm Workers Association (“NFWA”) who negotiated with employers and organized boycotts, strikes, demonstrations and marches for the farm workers.
After having read and watched the video about Cesar Chavez’s union, I gained an understanding about his long struggle to gain rights for field workers. But after having attended the event “What I learned about Cesar Chavez” I even gained a better understanding about how Cesar Chavez accomplished what he did. Throughout Grossman's lecture I was able to form several connections to what I learned from the book. Grossman spoke about Cesar Chavez’s determination and ability to inspire others. These characteristics inspired me to fight for what I believe in.
The Mexican-American Cesar Chavez has changed the lives of many people. He was a kind man who devoted his life into helping people. He was a great union leader and labor organizer. Chavez’s parents taught him about the important ideas of hard work, the importance of education, and about respect. Cesar Chavez had a positive social impact on the United States during the twentieth century because he changed the lives of many farm laborers in America.
Cesar Chavez was an effective leader for many reasons, but mostly it was because he never gave up. Chavez was born on his grandfather’s farm during the Great Depression. When he was still young, his family lost their farm and became migrant workers meaning they had to move many times. Chavez attended 36 schools up until eighth grade when he dropped out of school to help his family out with the farming. While he worked in the farms, he was exposed to the hardships of farm life. Since then, Chavez decided that he did not want anyone else that was a farm worker to experience the same things he did. He wanted to follow in the steps of Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi to protest in a nonviolent way.
In Florence Kelley’s 1905 speech to the Philadelphia convention of the National American Women Suffrage Association, she accentuates the obligatory need to reform the working conditions for young children.
Cesar chavez (1927-1993) was a civil rights leader. He is most famous for creating the National Farm Workers Association. Chavez grew up in Arizona on his family’s farm. When the depression hit, Chavez was 11 years old, and his family lost their farm and were forced to become migrant workers. The working conditions on the farms Chavez and his family worked on were horrible. This later inspired him to make a union for farm workers, the National Farm Workers Association. He is known for being an activist of civil rights for Latinos, rights for farm workers, and also for animal rights.
Cesar Chavez was able to win the Civil Rights Battle by being dedicated and committed to his goal, having confidence that his strategic plans would work, and by influencing important and famous people to give him their support. Through his boycotts, marches, and strikes Cesar Chavez achieved what he wanted for the people, which was better working conditions, better pay, and better treatment of workers. Cesar Chavez is now recognized as the Martin Luther King Jr. of the migrant farm workers, and of the Mexican People.
The United Farm Workers of America, 30 Jan. 2016. Web. 15 Jan. 2016.) since he was hero and a savior for every farmworker. Cesar chavez impact every farmworker life because without him every farmworker would be in the same condition. they were before Cesar
Cesar Chavez uses morals and his audience fear of destruction to justify his stance on non-violent protests . Martin Luther King jr was an activist and civil rights leader that did not use violence to get his point across like many other activists at that time. Cesar Chavez wrote on the anniversary of his death explaining why using nonviolence is the way to advocate rights for those in need. His article was put in a religious organization that helped people who were in need of help. Cesar Chavez uses morals as a way to appeal to the religious side of his audience. Cesar Chavez also uses the fear of losing power to prove that doing nonviolent protests are the right way to spread his cause.
Senator Robert F. Kennedy described him as “one of the heroic figures of our time” (Cesar Chavez Foundation). This shows that Cesar Chavez made a difference in people’s lives, including Senator Robert’s. Some people may say that immigrants are bad people but Cesar Chavez was an immigrant himself yet, also a hero to the country. Experts say he was an American farm worker, labor leader, and a civil rights activist. This shows that he fought for what he believed in. Being a farm worker wasn’t something he planned on doing but he had no choice because he was an immigrant. He saw how cruel Americans were treating immigrants so he fought for their rights. He spoke for all the immigrants everywhere. The Cesar Chavez Foundation mentioned that at age 11, his family lost their farm during the great depression and became migrant farm workers. This shows how and why Cesar Chavez fought for farmworkers rights. He grew up not having the best childhood but he took others lives into consideration and fought for them to have a better and brighter
Within the public sphere women had the option of peaceful protest which allowed for them to sway the political system that had oppressed them for so long. Unfortunately public protest could not change the oppression that took place in the private sphere of domesticity. We can see in the story that Mother has no intere... ... middle of paper ... ... E. Freeman.
In the Child Labor in the Carolinas, photos and depictions of children working in mills show how working class children did not have the opportunities to branch out and have a childhood as defined by today’s standards. Though the pamphlet creators may have been fighting for better standards for child labor in textile mills of the Carolinas, they simultaneously show how working class families depended on multiple members to support the family: in “Chester, South Carolina, an overseer told me frankly that manufacturers [in] all the South evaded the child labor law by letting youngsters who are under age help older brothers and sisters” (McElway, 11). Children were used because they were inexpensive labor and were taken advantage of in many ways because they were so...
Led by Clara Lemlich, 20,000 immigrants, mostly young women, demanded a twenty percent pay raise, a fifty-two hour workweek, and a closed shop (59). Their cause gained a significant amount of attention and caught the eye of wealthy progressive reformers, such as Alva Belmont and Anne Morgan, who perceived the strike as an opportunity to also advocate their own objective: women’s suffrage. Wealthy elites like Carnegie and Sumner may have believed that efforts to change the natural order are futile, but Morgan claimed that after learning about the details of the strike, she and other women wouldn’t be able to live their lives “without doing something to help them” (72). These affluent women demonstrated their support from both sides of the spectrum, from modestly distributing ribbons and buttons, to Alva Belmont’s contribution of her several cars to a parade for the striking workers (682) and the pledge of her mansion as surety for the bail of four strikers (76). Without the aid of these women, it was doubtful the strikers “could have lasted much longer without progressive money” (70). However, frustration arose amongst picketers as these progressive reformers turned a strike based on class struggle into a “broader feminist revolt” (68). Morgan blamed the strikers’ treatment on the inability for women to vote, not their inability to unionize (67). Striker’s retorted, asking
Even though the women worked hard as Poor Law Guardians, they did it only because they had no other option available to them. She believed that in order for there to be no more suffering for the women of this time, they all needed to band together to fight back against the injustice they continuously faced. For Emmeline, she wanted to change the laws that made men so entitled even in a situation in which the men and women should have been viewed as equal. Despite her efforts to get these laws changed, nothing was accomplished in the hands of a man, and she felt it best for women to have these laws changed