-The Grape boycott was a major group that helped efforts for the nonviolent struggle group. The men in the loading docks came together to agree not to load the Delano grapes in efforts for Chavez's movement.

-Later on, there was a nonviolent march from Delano to Sacramento to the California State House.

-In the summer of 1966, The United Farm Workers Organizing Committee was established. In the 70's negotiations were initiated with UFWOC. Workers were rehired with benefits and better financial standing. The following won rights for California Farm workers.

Sharp, Gene. Waging nonviolent struggle: 20th century practice and 21st century potential. Boston, MA: Extending Horizons Books, 2007.

What is their social and cultural system?
The opponent group were a series of businesses that profited from exploiting immigrant workers and had no need to care about worker's rights.

What is their economic system?
Capitalism. Profiting from exploiting foreign workers.

Are they together or independent of each other? Dependent on the political, social, and economic systems of the potential nonviolent struggle group?
-  Yes. Exploiting Immigrant workers meant cheaper wages. The Bracero Program were a series of laws that allowed this to happen. Overall, the Opponent group are dependent on the systems because without such support, they would not be able to fight back.

To what degree are these respective systems controlled by the State structure?
States have laws, thus the systems are controlled quite a lot.

What is the nature and importance of any religious, moral, ideological, or other doctrinal beliefs and commitments of the opponent group?
-Money and profit is a centered ideology for the Opponent group.

Many of the farmer's were Roman-Catholic and even churches supported the Opponent Group.
- "Mothers Against Chavez" (177)


What are the demographics of the opponent group?
-White, old, men thinking they own everything.

What is the degree of support for the opponent group's system or regime among the general population and instituitions?
-Labor laws weren't enforced during this time.

“Safeway, the West Coast’s largest grocery [184] chain, started ‘Freedom to Work’ committees, which argued the case for nonunionization and denounced Chávez as a Marxist and a fraud….$2 million campaign…to promote grape consumption under the idea of ‘consumer rights’…health benefit of grapes, and bumper stickers…‘Eat California Grapes, the Forbidden Fruit!’” (185)

What is the ideological situation?
Immigrants are not American so why should they get paid the same as Americans?

To what degree does the opponent group rely on each of it's potential sources of power?
-Authority of legitimacy: relies on sources of violence or force
-Human resources:  police, not paying workers= they can't support their families, etc.
-Particular skills of knowledge: Some laws on their side. More brute than knowledge utilized.
-Psychological or ideological factors:  foreign workers should be happy with low wages since they are not from this country!
-Material resources: Money
-Ability to apply sanctions: Police and strong political figures.

Pillars of support that supply needed sources of power:
-Police, Prisons, Media, Businesses

Extent of pillars of support
influences:
 Businesses can get police to put protesters in prisons and the media can project how horrendous the protesters are.

Internal/External allies:
Local clergymen, farm foreman, police, laws, security guards, unionized branches of businesses.

"Natural allies" ?
Right wing political figures, businesses, farmers, pro unions.

- “Ronald Reagan directed the Board of Agriculture to launch a public relations campaign aimed at discrediting the boycott” (185)

- “campaigning for president, Richard Nixon called the boycott ‘illegal’…As president, Nixon went on to quadruple table grape shipments to U.S. troops in Vietnam” (185)

"Natural enemies"?
Activists, immigrant workers, organizations that don't want unions, organizations that support human rights (NFWA, UFW, etc)

Potential/Actual support or sympathy for nonviolent struggle group?
-College students and media exposure (176-177). John F. Kennedy supported the strike.

“Student volunteers, as well as 50 strikers, were trained and sent to a handful of cities nationwide to call for a boycott on six Giumarra labels.”(182)


Chávez planned to give a talk in Berkeley, California, to a group of student activists” (176)

- “$6,700 and attracting national media attention and volunteers” (177)

“By some strange chemistry, every time the opposition commits an unjust act against our hopes and aspirations, we get tenfold paid back in benefits.” (177)

Organizational structure?
Not very organized as Opponent group depended on support rather then their own power to implement changes.

Military capacity?
If protests got violent, military could be utilized.

Police capacity?

 - “Police also arrested picketers and the ultra right-wing John Birch Society started to organize counter-protests as well.” (180).

-“Hired security guards joined the campaign of intimidation and fired shotguns” (175)

-“The farm foremen were furious about the strike and beat the pickets while the police stood by and watched.” (175)

-Both Clergymen David Havens, and local Sheriff Roy Galyen did their best to cease the protest. Specifically, Sheriff Galyen who issued a decree outlawing the word "huelga"  ( 176).

What intelligence organizations does the group have at disposal?
Had court power and money.

“The grocery stores responded by obtaining court injunctions against mass picketing” (184)

Level or strategic skill?
Smart, but foolish as this just gave the protesters more power.


“We just totally disrupted all of these stores and we were a pain” (184)

Competent leadership?
No, The protesters were able to excel even through the violence being used against them.

Cesar Chávez reacted by, "continually urging people to remain nonviolent” (175)

Even after the protests subsided, the opponent group underestimated Cezar Chavez's goals, and didn't see the boycott at the shipping and distribution centers coming. (180)

Nonmilitary control?
Police, security guards, farmer foreman, election rigging.

Political fissures, internal conflicts, and other weaknesses?
Underestimated protesters and also as protesters power grew, the need for human rights policies also grew.

Normal support but may be targeted for transfer of loyalties for organizational destruction?
Media that supported antistrike.

Leadership is disputed or contested from within, through rivalries, power struggles, and other reasons?
Grape businesses have to compete with each other to lower prices, so people would buy grapes. Boycotted farms had to utilize other label names.

Other vulnerabilities and weaknesses?
-They struggled with the usage of violence to achieve their goals.
-Also struggled economically.

“Giumarra responded…to ship its products under 100 different labels used by other, nonboycotted farms. This mislabeling campaign caused widespread confusion among consumers” (182)


“Some supermarket chains also ceased buying grapes out of fear of secondary boycotts against them.” (183)

Sources:
Sharp, Gene. Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice, and 21st Century Potential. Boston, MA: Extending Horizons Books, 2007.

Overall, a strategic estimate is extremely important for a number of reasons to any cause. It is not necessarily just the quality or the quantity of information gathered to make the estimate accurate. It has to be the right blend of both. A battle against a government may require a much more specific strategic estimate as compared to a smaller opponent. 

Sharp, Gene. Waging nonviolent struggle: 20th century practice and 21st century potential. Boston, MA: Extending Horizons Books, 2007.

- after five days of their workers walking out the bosses shut off electricity at the workers camp, barricaded families inside of their shack  
- the bosses also started recruiting Mexican strikebreakers or braceros or scabs (lecture 10b) 

Workers
-Grape pickers in 1965 were making an average of 90 cents an hour, plus 10 cents per ‘lug’ (basket) picked” ("UFW")
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/americanlaborcrises/labor-crises/1965-grape-boycott

-According to Brown, Huerta had built strong boycott committees in neighborhoods where union membership was high and volunteers were plentiful, enthusiastic, and committed to stopping the sale of grapes in nearby stores. "Once [these individual A&P markets] started to capitulate," Brown explained, "[Dolores] wouldn't call off the picket lines until they agreed to take [grapes] off the entire division [of A&P markets]."

-Gilbert Padilla and Dolores Huerta, two of the most important leaders of the movement, established an effective boycott of Schenley Company's wine and liquor by appealing to people they knew in the labor unions in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Padilla recalled, "I went to the Central Labor Council, the restaurant and hotel labor union, the auto workers union; you name the union, we went to them."

. -Huerta described her strategy in a letter to Delano headquarters:

             "In each of the five boroughs, we organized neighborhood coalitions of church, labor, liberal and student groups. Then we began picketing A&P, the biggest chain in the city. For several months we had picket lines on about 25 to 30 stores and turned thousands of shoppers away. A lot of the managers had come up through the unions and were very sympathetic to us. In response to consumer pressure, the store managers began to complain to their division heads, and soon they took the grapes out of all of their stores, 430 of them." (Garcia)

^Opposition 

 -In 1969, Daniel Lyons, a Jesuit, published editorials in Twin Circle that declared that the bishops and priests who supported the strike had been led "astray." (Jacobs)

-The editor of the Central California Register, Gerald Sherry claims, the growers "wanted only their viewpoint and no one else's" publicized in the diocese's paper and were often outraged at the mere mention of Chávez or unions in its pages.⁴⁷ The Catholic Church and its officials in the Fresno Diocese tried their hardest to remain neutral. Father James Dillon said, "it's not our place to take sides . . . I [End Page 36] think it's an economic issue. It's not a moral issue." (Jacobs)

-A Chamber of Commerce spokesperson summed up these arguments in testimony to Congress in 1926: "We, gentlemen, are just as anxious as you are not to build the civilization of California or any other western district upon a Mexican foundation. We take him because there is nothing else available. We have gone east, west, north, and south and he is the only man-power available to us." The Farm Bureau asserted that "California's specialized agriculture [requires] a kind of labor able to meet the requirements of hard, stoop, hand labor, and to work under the sometimes less advantageous conditions of heat, sun, dust, winds, and isolation." (Martin)


 Jacobs, Andrew. “American Catholic Studies Index for Volume 124: (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter 2013).” American Catholic Studies, vol. 124, no. 4, 2013, pp. 97–103., doi:10.1353/acs.2013.0059.

Martin, Philip. Braceros: History, Compensation - Rural Migration News | Migration Dialogue, migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=1112.