History: The Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia

By R. Marhikewun (Aukiñ) January-July 1990

Chilean and Argentinean historians have tried to convince us that, with the independence of Chile and Argentina from Spain in 1810, the Mapuche people would also automatically be liberated from their enemy and, therefore, from any threat of foreign incursion. This is evidenced by the way in which colonial historians have used our proud historic resistance as a banner for their struggle for independence and adopted Mapuche heroes as symbols for their struggle. Patriotic speeches were intended to persuade the Mapuches to join the fight for independence, maintaining that their struggle was our struggle and that victory over the Spaniards would also be a victory for the Mapuches. Thus began the standard “huinca” (non-indigenous) policy of thinking, speaking and deciding on our behalf, an attitude which has essentially continued until today.

The Mapuches, however, viewed the war of independence from a completely different perspective. For them it was no more than a tussle between ‘huinca’ people, and whichever side won would inevitably become their adversary: for centuries the ‘huinca’ nature and their attitude of contempt and derision towards Mapuches had not changed and there was no good reason to believe that it should then. The fact that the Mapuches did not join the war of independence and that later, in a humanitarian gesture, they gave persecuted royalists sanctuary, was seen by the Creoles as an act of ‘treason’. These apparently contradictory views, manufactured with ulterior motives, were at odds with the absolute clarity of the Mapuche vision, which rejected the supposed “integration” with the republics as a mere propaganda exercise. The Creole viewpoint was also contradicted by the Mapuche determination and will, to defend their independence from all foreign or ‘huinca’ take-over.

Thus, when the Frenchman Orélie-Antoine de Tounens arrived in Araucania and Patagonia, he discovered an independent country whose people were sure of their sovereignty and who exercised self-determination as any other nation would. Fifty years had passed since Argentina and Chile’s political independence from Spain when, in 1860, a kingdom was born in Araucania and Patagonia. The new republics, gaining in strength, were preparing to take control of the Mapuche territory by force. The provocative military activities on the Frontier on either side of the Andes intensified, and then, by means of judicial instruments, they “legally” appropriated Mapuche land. They decreed unconquered Mapuche territories, state owned and attempted by means of parliamentary communiqués, to extend the reach of their domestic laws to a people over whom they had no jurisdiction.

The creation of the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia, a territory which was at that time, I stress, part of the independent Mapuche nation, was until recently, one of the most forgotten and unknown historic events for contemporary Mapuches. The Quimches (Mapuche historians) and the oldest members of our communities remember it, but both these groups are much attacked and despised by “huinca” society. The first of these groups is dismissed, because of their oral method of teaching history, as ‘’unscientific’’ and relegated to the folkloric world of magic and fable. The second is insulted as “indianised”, in other words “uncivilised” or “uncouth”. With the former discounted and the latter discredited, generations of Mapuches were left no option but to accept the official version, or rather the semi-official one because strangely, the “huinca’ historians could not agree on the facts surrounding the formation of the Kingdom. This event, like other historic moments of our people’s history, is presented with ridicule, as unworthy of forming part of our history. Mapuche history has been hijacked and inserted into the history of Chile and Argentina (depending on the country in which that bit of land falls now.) These histories, which are intent on cultural assimilation, record historic events and present them in such a way that Mapuches feel ashamed of their heroes, culture and people. The few Mapuches who have ventured to investigate this historic event more fully have accepted its existence, but some would categorise it as a lamentable and unfortunate event or a mere “historic accident”, as they cannot conceive that their Mapuche chiefs would have associated themselves nor put their trust and the fate of their people in the hands of a “madman” (according to the “huinca”, a definitive interpretation worthy of unanimity) But was he truly mad?

The Mapuche nation and its leaders could see that the new colonisers’ invasion was imminent. It was thus, in this tense period on the brink of the demise of our nation’s independence, that Orélie-Antoine arrived in Chile (1858). He was a fervent admirer of our people’s unparalleled defence of our freedom against great odds, for our struggle against the Spaniards which was such that their loss in expenditure, arms and men was greater than that of the entire “conquest of America”. In Quillin, 1641, they were obliged to sign the only treaty which recognised the territorial border of an indigenous nation throughout the whole continent. Orélie wanted to get to know - as he would say on several occasions - that noble race of heroes. The acceptance, integration and, later, trust with which the Mapuche authorities treated him was due to his own merits, his commitment and loyalty to our cause. It is this which today makes us recognise in Orélie a man of great stature and which incontrovertibly places him alongside our most illustrious heroes.  

The situation which the Mapuche people were facing was critical given the imbalance of their defensive power in relation to the new weapons which were being introduced to the republics’ armies. Alliances, assistance and international recognition were solicited more than ever. But weapons alone would not suffice in an ethnocentric, western world which was racist and offensively chauvinistic, which disregarded anything which did not adapt to its own understanding of civilisation and culture. Faced with this reality the Mapuche leaders undoubtedly felt that the time had come to employ a new tactic in the promotion and legitimisation of their nation in the international arena.

A monarchy presented them with just such an opportunity. It represented the last stand in the long fight in defence of their sovereignty and self-determination. It was established on the 17th November 1860 with the passing of a constitution and the declaration of Orélie-Antoine as King. The constitution (revolutionary for its time) guaranteed individual liberties and equality before the law, besides full Mapuche participation in legal, judicial, administrative and political institutions. In effect the new structure the Mapuches created, although inconsistent with their traditional organisation, granted them what both republics were denying them. I must point out that it would be logical to assume that the decision to accept western rules was inconsistent with the proud character of our people, who had acquired respect by consistently retaining their own system of government.

Those who believed that the decision to accept a foreigner to direct the fate of our people was a measure of convenience, straightforward or hasty, does not understand the nature and common sense of the Mapuche mind. Our Quimches relate that in the region of Lul-lul Mawidha, in the interior of Temuco, Mapuches arrived from all parts of the region (including from the Argentinean side) who, once they had been ceremonially received by the “loncos” (local chiefs), stayed in debate for several weeks (and this in the midst of a war). Today we would describe this as experts meeting for a conference, symposium or study group; they were the ones to make policy and plan military strategy for the defence of the nation. So Mapuches did not improvise, and decisions taken were well thought out, discussed and planned. Whilst it is true that a great many historians, and likewise the media (corroborating one another), appeared in general to agree on the perpetuation of the stereotypical view that was at that time generated about King Orélie, there are also historical facts which expose this as nonsense.

Certainly it was necessary to perpetuate that view to dishonour him and remove all significance and credibility from him, in order to undermine any consolidation of the monarchy. The Chilean authorities, even though they were the originators of this propaganda, in practice took it very seriously, so seriously that the monarchy was rapidly infiltrated by their security forces and, as if that were not enough, they offered 250 Piastras reward to whoever could capture him dead or alive. They strategically placed the spy Juan Bautista Rosales a spy, in the service of the King; later, during Orelie’s trial, he revealed his true role to be that of Second Corporal of the Civil Squadron of Nacimiento. He kept his superiors informed of Orelie’s movements in Mapuche territory.

On 5th January 1862, taking advantage of the King’s move to an area close to the border, Orélie was kidnapped by a military troop which had entered Mapuche territory disguised as merchants (priests and traders were allowed into Mapuche lands). The “brains” behind the operation was the criminal Cornelio Saavedra, architect of the ‘’Araucania Pacification” which, later, made use of a scorched earth military strategy. Imprisoned in the jail at Los Angeles (Chile), Orélie was treated brutally, confined to a damp, dark and unhealthy cell and deprived of food and medical care. He was taken there “to rot”, but, as the King wrote, in his own testimony of the macabre experience in Saavedra’s dungeons: “my health soon deteriorated and a truly serious illness kept me flat on my bunk for five months. For six weeks I was unconscious with a fever which took me literally to death’s door. I was without assistance, shivering and sweating, and I had nothing with which to wet my lips but a jug of cold water which a prisoner brought me ... Finally the fever let up; and later it disappeared altogether. I was safe. But at what price! I was wasted away, if not to corpse-like proportions, at least to those of a skeleton ... I was really afraid of the vision of my emaciated face ... my hair began to fall out so copiously that I felt threatened by total baldness ...” This treatment on the orders of Saavedra, eventually caused him a painful and premature death.

In his trial King Orélie acted as his own advocate and proceeded to discard one by one the charges against him. They were unable to pass sentence on him as they could find no legal charges, his case was passed from tribunal to tribunal; from military jurisdiction to civil and back to military. They wanted to be rid of him as his preventative detention had now become a thorn in their side; his freedom would be an embarrassing failure for the government and, on top of everything else, the case of his detention and prison treatment was beginning to have repercussions in France. To declare him insane was an advantageous solution. Not only would they thus evade all responsibility and their own judicial incompetence to condemn him on fabricated charges, but it would also fit in with the aims of their propaganda. Despite Doctors Burke and Reygnault certifying “the accused is in full possession of his mental faculties”, the authorities insisted on declaring him insane, and ordered another medical examination for which on this occasion they chose non-independent doctors, who under pressure, had no choice but to declare him “insane’. He was sent to the lunatic asylum in Santiago where, on the 16th October 1862, he was freed and immediately expelled from Chile.

The Chilean and Argentinean governments declared him “persona non-grata” and he was forbidden from entering either state. However, he returned three times -“after all, huinca people didn’t have control of our mapu (land) nor of its people, and his presence in Mapuche territory was welcome”. He was to be imprisoned three times, relentlessly persecuted, ridiculed and mocked, not only by his enemies, but also by his own compatriots: “he sacrificed his life, his possessions, everything that could be sacrificed ... his remarkable solidarity was answered only by popular derision” one document states. Why? Because he committed the “madness” of breaking a tradition where white people’s scorn, trickery and betrayal against indigenous peoples were the norm. If, in another instant of American history, King Orélie had been fighting alongside Creoles for their independence and freedom, for the devotion and courage which only he could demonstrate he would have entered the long list of heroes, liberators and national figures whose nationality has never been a barrier to inclusion.

Reference: Central archives of Mapuche documentation.

_______________________________

Source: Aukiñ No 16
January - July 1990
Bulletin of the Comite Exterior Mapuche

Revised by James Edwards
20th July 2011

 

 

Arriba^^