Radicals and reformers are at the forefront of progressive thought and action, rallying movements that often translate to legislative or representative change. In the US, many radicals and reformers have confronted issues such as women’s suffrage, union rights, segregation, and more. Although sometimes slow and cumbersome to achieve, the notion of progress is a valid one, rooted in centuries of movements that have reconfigured the social scheme of this country. For Latinos living in the US, figures such as Cesar Chavez and movements like the Chicano Movement and formation of the Young Lords Party represent immense efforts to change the perception and condition of Latinos in society. Despite the fact that many social issues historically plaguing …show more content…
Cesar Chavez, known for founding the United Farm Workers Union, sought to improve the conditions of Latino American farm laborers, working predominantly in California and Florida. Chavez’s use of nonviolent tactics gained him nationwide support and eventual success as the UFW became a powerful bargaining agent with landowners. One critique of Chavez’s approach would be that although his calls for reform did improve the rights of farm workers, the change still was not enough to genuinely improve the lives of such laborers. Many still work difficult hours under extreme conditions for low pay. On the contrary, the Young Lords Party, organized as a coalition of Puerto Ricans seeking to improve access to health, food, housing, and education, took a more radical approach when it came to enacting change. In Philadelphia, the Young Lords were known for moving trash that the city had allowed to pile up in their neighborhoods to more affluent areas and lighting it on fire. This gained the attention of city officials and ultimately resulted in better sanitation measures for primarily Puerto Rican neighborhoods. Through more radical methods, the Young Lords were able to improve community health measures and combat environmental racism waged on them by their respective cities. However, the brand of internal democracy adopted by the Young Lords and its inability to centralize into a unified national movement became weaknesses that could not be overlooked. By the mid 1970s, the Young Lords were heavily in