They're thinking of turning the peasant into an educated man. Why, first of all they should make him a good and prosperous farmer and then he'll learn all that is necessary for him to know.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The farmer has to be an optimist or he wouldn't still be a farmer.
Prosperous farmers mean more employment, more prosperity for the workers and the business men of every industrial area in the whole country.
I mean, my people were very, very simple. They were peasant people, you know?
Ignorant people are apt to overrate the value of what is called education. The sons of the poor, having suffered the privations of poverty, think of wealth as the mother of joy.
This means that they are bound by law and custom to plough the fields of their masters, harvest the corn, gather it into barns, and thresh and winnow the grain; they must also mow and carry home the hay, cut and collect wood, and perform all manner of tasks of this kind.
A good farmer is nothing more nor less than a handy man with a sense of humus.
Agrarian reform should not merely subdivide misery, it must raise living standards. Ownership raises the farmer from his, but productivity will keep him on his feet.
As farmers or owners, the poor peasants possess a piece of land. The excellent means of transport enables them often to sell their goods. At the very worst they can mostly provide their own food.
I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly.
We've got this cultural mentality that you've got to be an idiot to be a farmer.