The answer really depends on whether the farmer is also the landlord or only a worker in the fields, and bearing in mind that the question refers only to Chavez’ reforms, not what is now called Chavismo, that is to say, the rule of President Maduro.
If the first, then there are chances that the landlord would feel threatened about the fact this his land could be —although not necessarily— appropriated by the State, but also, he might feel relieved to learn that his land could be more productive since there would be a lot more subsidies for farming since the oil revenues of the country would again be in the hands of the State.
If it is the second possibility, the farmer most likely would feel relieved altogether since subsidies to labor power and farming would mean greater income and better living conditions for him and his family.
I'm pretty sure they are correct!
Your answer would be C, mainly because the soil near a waterway is very fertile, and before cars, boats were a cheap, easy way of transit.
Answer: A. is the correct answer <3
Explanation: California natives attempted to halt migrants’ entry into their state during the Dust Bowl era by taking all of the following actions except burning land after harvest to communicate their resistance to migrant workers seeking entry into the state. Have a gr8t day !! pls mark me brainliest.
