The Agrarian Reform Law Decree 900 was enacted in 1952 under President Jacobo Árbenz’s government. President Árbenz wanted Guatemala’s financial system to grow and he wanted to transform the rural population through land redistribution and by giving them agricultural privileges. However, these ideals for land reform were short-lived; coming to an end with his coup in 1954. This essay will explain what the Agrarian Reform law in Guatemala was as well as what were its effects on landowners and rural hacienda workers, while touching on why the reform failed despite its progressive ideals. The Agrarian Reform in the words of Árbenz himself, was passed to “transform Guatemala from a dependent nation with a semi-colonial economy into a country …show more content…
Before the reform, some estates slaughtered animals and distributed the meat among their laborers, some held fairs and brought marimbas and dance groups and provided them with a plantation house. These gifts were no longer provided for the peasants and now laborers had to learn how to be independent and deal with the outside world by themselves. This turned out to be a problem, as peasants were always dependent on their patrón and had no education or training navigating the world outside of the farm. This led to desperation and caused the peasants to turn to violence and illegal measures. Peasants began to struggle for the same land and often fought over this. They began invading lands without the government’s permission because the paperwork for the redistribution of land was too slow and they were in a miserable situation. Landholders saw these conditions as a path to pressure the government and the president to withdraw his bill and leave the agricultural situation how it previously was.
Landowners did not approve of the reform since it gave special privileges to their workers, and now the peasants knew landowners could no longer use the law in their favor. Landowners did not want their lands to be taken away because the more land you have the more money you have. Fearing expropriation, they began cultivating some of their land that had not been tilled or used
…show more content…
Now, whenever a conflict arose, the unions backed the workers and the patrón was left to fight on his own. Both the government parties and these landowners feared that this radical change will awaken the rural masses and unleash forces that they might not be able to control. They feared the reward of politics and power in the farming industry would vanish. Their fears soon became true, the government’s influence on the countryside strengthened, and peasants soon began breaking the law by invading lands. This, in turn, caused the affected landholders to build more anger towards Árbenz and try to look for a way to get rid of him and his law. They began bribing workers with good wages and special privileges and pressing the President to withdraw his
High prices forced farmers to concentrate on one crop. The large-scale farmers bought expensive machines, increasing their crop yield. This caused the smaller farmers to be left behind. The small farmers could no longer compete and were forced give up their farms and look for jobs in the cities. The smaller farmers who stayed blamed their troubles on banks and railroads. In the 1890’s western and southern farmers came together to make up the political party called the Populist Party. Their plan was to take control of the White House; then they could solve all their problems.
The farmers of the late 1800s had many reasons for being dissatisfied with their situation. Unfair railroad practices, such as rebates and drawbacks, hurt them severely. Even common issues of shortage of money, drought, and mortgages were all issues that hurt farmers economically. The farmers of the period, though, used these issues to change the shape of American politics.
To sum it all up, the agrarian society was threatened by the low prices of crops, monopolies and trusts, railroad companies, and banks. During the last twenty years of the 19th century, farmers started speaking out against these problems and parties such as the Populist Party came into existence. The complaints by farmers were justified because farmers could barely make a profit and any money that they did have would go to the railroad companies for transporting crops or banks to pay off the loans.
For the first few years of piece, after the Revolutionary War, the commercial and agrarian society’s future appeared to be in danger by a chain of debt bothering the postwar years depressed economy. The horrible economy had effects on nearly everybody in New England, particularly the farmers. The farmers for years had been accustomed to growing only enough for what they required and grew very little in surplus. The issue with this way of farming is that with little to no surplus it is very hard to earn enough money for paying excessive debts. Since farmers had very little money the buyers offered the item they needed on short term credit and received any surplus farm goods for seasonal payment. But if the farmer ended up with a less than satisfactory crop, shopkeepers would normally extend the credit and basically tied the farmer to their business yearly. When a credit crisis happens, the slow disintegration of this culture became more and more obvious. In times of hardship, merchants that needed cash withdrew credit from their farmer customers and called for hard cash repayment of loans. These kind of demands showed how the commercial elite were growing in power which unsettled the farmers of New England. Many of the farmers in debt were put in debtors prison. Some decided to take a stand and start a rebellion.
From the time of its colonization at the hands of Spanish Conquistadors in the early 1500’s, Guatemala has suffered under the oppression of dictator after dictator. These dictators, who ruled only with the support of the military and only in their own interests, created a form of serfdom; by 1944, two percent of the people owned 70 percent of the usable land.
opposition, and overthrown the laws of the land, and was preying upon the people.” In
The Mayan Genocide was a result of a civil war concerning communism and democracy between corrupt leaders and the people of Guatemala. The Guatemalan army carried out the genocide under the self-proclaimed name “killing machines”. According to the article Genocide in Guatemala “the army destroyed 626 villages, killed or “disappeared” more than 200,000 people and displaced an additional 1.5 million, while more than 150,000 were driven to seek refuge in Mexico”. The army murdered and tortured without regard to age or gender, men, women, and children all alike. In an attempt to end the conflict Peace Accords were signed, in spite of the fact that there was little change. Directly following the Mayan genocides, Guatemala faced physical and emotional
During the year of 1861, Alexander II official issued the Edict of Emancipation, this freed over 20 million serfs. Looking back to the times of 1820, many of the Russians believed in abolishing serfdom. Despite this, the czars and nobles were reluctantly against it. You can imagine going back to the current time in 1861, after having serfdom for countless years, some Russians would be unwilling to change the system now. Unfortunately, his reform regarding serfdom only went halfway. Instead, peasant communities received about half of the farmland in the country, and the nobles were to keep the other half. The government then paid the nobles for their farmland. On the other side, the peasant communities had 49 years to pay the government for their land. Although, the reform had made the serfs free, the debt still remained which tied them to the land.
The famine in Russia alone led the peasants to become angry and fed up with the Russian government, suggesting a future revolution. Because of the peasants’ unrest, they began to break the law by as stealing food for their families and shouting in the streets. Russia had attempted revolution before, and a fear of an uprising was feared again. Their everyday routi...
... of the Peasants' Revolt. Ed. Jeff Hobbs. N.p., 2000. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. .
middle of paper ... ... It also established a system of redemption payments in which the government paid the landowners for the land in advance while the peasants paid annual sums to the government. The land would not actually go to the individual peasants but to a peasant commune. One last provision was the creation of a type of self-government for the peasants, demonstrating that although the peasants were no longer ruled by serfdom.
One way that eastern businessmen exploited farmers in the west was by owning the land they worked on, and taking most of their profits. Many contracts between businessmen and farmers had clauses such as, “The sale of every cropper’s part of the cotton to be made by me when and where I choose to sell, and after deducting all they owe me and all sums that I may be responsible for on their accounts, to pay them their half of the net proceeds.” (Document E) The conditions that these farmers’ families lived in were disgusting, and were described in a poorly written letter from a farmer’s wife to the governor of Kansas. “we are Starving to death It is Pretty hard to do without any thing to eat in this God for saken country… my Husband went a way to find work and came home last night and told me that we would have to Starve…” (Document H) This shows that not only was literacy uncommon in the west, but more importantly, that when factors out of their control destroyed farmers’ crops, they often
After the emancipation of the Russian Peasantry, land was given to the peasants. This was between 1861 and 1866, but because the nobility had lost their land when the peasants were given land, the peasants had to pay a tax until 1905. As the years passed, the land allotted to each person decreased from 13.8 acres to 7.3 acres as the population increased. Due to this increase in population and decrease in land, a series of famines struck the rural areas. As the peasants mainly occupied the rural areas, they were perceived to be living in poor conditions by the Russian people, and as response to their conditions, peasants started taking a stand, and voicing their opinions; change was proposed in the end when peasants were given more freedom,
Farmer’s discontent during the period 1870 – 1900 had an impact on their attitudes and actions towards politics. During this period manufacturing had a growth spurt and agricultural started to decline. This made it harder for the farmers to make a decent living. For example in document G it shows how much manufacturing increased between the 50 years. America could no longer dream to be a nation of small freehold farms. Manufacturers and people living in big cities depended on farmers to supply everything. Many people didn’t realize how much of an affect farmers had on their lives. If somebody was to take farms away, everything would have completely crashed.
In the years leading up to World War I, social unrest among the Russian people was spreading rapidly. There was a huge social gulf between the peasants who were former serfs and the landowners. The peasants regarded anyone who did not work as a parasite. They had always regarded as all land belonging to them. They regarded any land retained by the landowners at the time serfs were freed as stolen and only force could prevent them from taking it back. By the time Russia entered the war, one peasant rebellion had already been suppressed and several socialist revolutionary movements were developing.