Talk:Decree 900

message: 18,000 sq. km is not 42% of the nation's land. Guatemala is 108,000 sq. km. Maybe refering to only arable land. --(unsigned by UtherSRG)
:Yes, it is only refereing to arable land....sorry--I will need to check the book to make sure... Travb 03:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 18,000 sq. km

message: The article refers to large landowners at the time the decree was issued as "oligarchs." The article also says that "The law showed that land reform increased productivity." without what I would consider sufficient evidence. I don't think this qualifies as NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.188.62 (talk • contribs) 
:I welcome a counter, referenced point, disputing these statments. Both your POV and La Feber's have a place in the article. All of the statments are from La Feber, Walter (1993). Inevitable Revolutions The United States in Central America. Travb (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: oligarchs

message: I've flagged "The law showed that land reform increased productivity." and "The countrywide union block which ran the program was under non-communist leadership until 1954." as needing citations.  The first statement doesn't make literal sense, and seems POV.  The second statement is contrary to what the New York Times said contemporaneously, although that paper may have been misled by interested landowners.  See NYT 23 Aug 1954 p. 8.  I'd also like to see an expansion by someone knowledgeable to follow up on the repeal of this decree by the subsequent regime.  Fitzaubrey 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: check the source

message: When Arbenz's administration passed the Agrarian Reform Law, many of the class and ethnic divisions in rural Guatemalan communities were exacerbated. In rural communities there were vast inequalities between land-owning and landless peasants as well as Indians and Ladinos. While the Indian population was the majority, the Ladino population tended to control most of the farmable land. Conflict, however, occurred within ethnic communities and across class lines as much as it did between ethnicities. Increased ability to organize labor movements, resulting directly from Arévalo and Arbenz policies, exacerbated the conflicts between ethnic and geographic groups as they became more organized and polarized than ever before.
Indian farm operators had an average of 4.5 manzanas, a unit of land similar to a hectare, whereas their Ladino farm operating counterparts averaged 35 manzanas. Within the disadvantaged Indian majority, there was vast inequality between the upper and lower classes. According to a 1950 census, only about 1 percent of Indian farm operators actually controlled 25 percent of all Indian-owned farmland. In Totonicapán province, 5.3 percent of Indian farm operators controlled 32 percent of Indian land. In the Huehuetenango region, 1.3 percent of Indian farm operators owned 26 percent of the Indian land. It is clear that these inequalities would be difficult to fix through agrarian reform, especially when a very small number of Indian lands would have qualified for reappropriation under the Agrarian Reform Law. The Agrarian Reform Law only affected the largest plantations in Guatemala such as those owned by the United Fruit Company. The Law did not address inequalities of a more minor scale.
Some Indian communities opposed agrarian reform not because there was a wealth of farmable land, but because the relative disparity between land ownership within the community was small. In Jutiapa, a community with a large Indian population, the average land ownership was 4.4 manzanas and yet the community resisted revolutionary ideals and groups, they wanted no part of land reform. Part of their hesitance stemmed from a reluctance to trust the national government, which for so long had taken advantage of the lowest classes of Guatemalans. Indian communities feared that the little land they did own would be in danger if reforms were passed.
The more wealthy peasantry seems to have been the most opposed to the Agrarian Reform Law, despite the fact that most of their land would not have fallen under the umbrella of the Law. Wealthier land-owning peasants did not want to see those below them gain land because of Decree 900. 
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccm38 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ccm38, I have no argument with the information you have here, but first off you need to present a source for this information, and secondly this is more appropriate for the Decree 900 page; it is rather too much detail for this one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rural Responses to the Agrarian Reform Law 

message: In “Changes in political power”, fourth paragraph talks about CNCG being founded in 1950, but popular in 1945. I’m not an expert on Wikipedia or this exact topic, but I think someone made an honest number mistake. Just hoping to help! 2600:1001:B004:F406:7:3ECA:576F:A47E (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates messed up