A large chopping knife in tropical regions, yes. In Europe, once the fields were cleared, they used sickles and scythes. Not long straight blades - those were considered at best short swords and reserved for nobility.
I don't think we are disagreeing on the fact that agricultural workers use blades, more the interpretation of their working shape. Since Europe was much more a feudal or fief culture with an elite heirarchy, the design of their edged tools was quickly governed by their status in life. Peons working the land didn't carry long blade for crops, if anything, the temperate climate meant they had much less need for them than those working in more tropical climes. The difference is that in temperate zones, you have vegetation that must withstand the extremes of subfreezing temperatures in winter, or comparatively harsh dry summers. The plants that survive and thrive on that are much more woody and fibrous. You wind up have more heavy stems, stick, and trees, not plants that much constantly be cut back regularly to prevent their invasion.
Hawks, hatchets, and axes are more prevalent in temperate zones, long blades - machetes, parangs, bolos, kukris common in tropical areas. That is why the American Indian adopted the hawk to a larger degree than a 30" long blade. It was a temperate clime export to a temperate clime indigeneous people. The Europeans didn't ship over swords, they considered them war blades. They sent axes, hawks, and trade knives up to 8" - 10"
You don't find depictions of farm workers in Europe or American Indians with long machete like blades. Those are tropical use blades largely restricted to central America, Africa, SE Asia or the Pacific Rim. They have become highly popular in modern American culture, but it's only been recently as we attempt to push back against our largely urbanized existence. What really happened in America's more primitive time is accurately documented in writings and pictures - the tomahawk is much more prevalent.
