For this document analysis, I reviewed the article “Dolores Huerta, Proclamation of the Delano Grape Workers, 1969.” This document focuses on the declarations made by Huerta and other Chicano voices that protested the unequal rights that grape workers received. However, right from the beginning of the article, you can tell that are some disagreements and bias that go along with the document. The first thing that stood out to me was the fact that the workers were staging a boycott about their working conditions. The fact that the workers were staging a boycott means this was a controversial topic, that some people, namely the landowners, had   conflicting opinions and would most likely oppose the boycott. The landowners and big companies that own the lands from which the grapes are grown and picked, had almost certainly benefited greatly from the cheap labor that they exploited Mexican American workers for. Staging a boycott where Chicanos fight to gain rights that would give them better working conditions, more rights and higher wages would mean that the landowners/big companies could lose a considerable amount of their profit. Consequently, such actions would be unfavorable to bias of the landowners and companies and as such, they are not in support of the Chicano Rights Movement and adamantly oppose it. However, it is not just the landowners that have bias, it also comes from the workers.
On the other hand of the landowners and big companies being biased, we can also see that another source of bias comes directly from the Mexican American workers themselves. Most Mexican Americans before and during the 1960’s have most likely experienced discrimination directly or have indirectly heard of discrimination happening to other generations in their family or friends. Either way, all Mexican Americans were considered part of the minority and have experienced racial inequality and oppression at the hands of the white majority. They have had to work in terrible conditions, faced job insecurity and have been treated cruelly not just by the landowners but by society as well which has left them at a big disadvantage socially, economically and politically. Because of this, Chicano/as have rightly developed a bias of their own against the majority and use this bias to ferociously fight for their long-time-coming rights. Dolores Huerta is also part of that minority and has also experienced that same the racial discrimination. 
Dolores Huerta was a leader of the boycott and as such is a figure of power for the movement. Her own bias as being both a women and part of the oppressed minority acted as a catalyst/driving force to help her push and fight tooth and nail to earn rights for Mexican Americans. Over the years of working hard to gain rights for Chicano, Huerta has become a very powerful and influential figure. Huerta uses her influence/status to unite both Chicano and Chicanas. Under her direction, both men and women work alongside each other and unite the Chicano for a single purpose. Her influence to get them to willingly work together acts as a show of solidarity amongst Chicano/as that the land owners can no longer ignore. Because Huerta is a powerful figure, her bias extends to everyone involved in the movement.  It is already likely that most of the people involved in the movement already had a bias of their own toward the majority as I stated earlier. However, some might not have and Huerta’s influence could have either helped them create a bias or further solidify their bias toward the landowners. 
