Orélie Antoine I, King of Araucanía and Patagonia
The Steel Crown Shines in the Southern Cone of the Americas
By Reynaldo Mariqueo – 17th November 2007
 |
Today, on the 17th November, we commemorate the 147th anniversary of the foundation of the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia, a date declared by Royal Decree on the 6th January 2001 to be the Day of Wallmapuche Unity or Day of National Mapuche Unity. In this article, I intend to dispel some of the myths that have been upheld – in my view, deliberately – by spokespersons of the dominant society concerning its foundation, particularly the role played by King Orélie Antoine and the chiefs of the Mapuche nation. The Steel Crown of the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia |
Firstly, it is important to point out that popular perceptions sustained to this day about the formation of King Orélie Antoine’s reign originated in the highest realms of the Chilean and Argentinian governments. The fact that their version has been promoted by an interested party that, as we know, had plans to conquer the Mapuche nation’s territory, calls into question the impartiality of their version of events. Consequently, we should reflect upon the motives of such an onslaught of publicity, a matter that I will aim to explore in this article. ______________ Orélie Antoine I, King of Araucanía and Patagonia |
 |
On the other hand, it is understandable that the representatives of the states of Chile and Argentina believe they had, and continue to have, every right to promote theories explaining or justifying the annexation of the Mapuche territory, an event that took place decades after the foundation of the Mapuche Kingdom in 1860. However, it is unacceptable that this should occur at the cost of the truth by manipulating the facts, and above all, that mockery, and personal and racial attacks should be used as means of persuasion to discredit those who founded it. Far from achieving its objectives, this technique raises suspicion about the interests that are being pursued; what is being hidden and why? It awakens doubt and questioning over the veracity of what is being said by those claiming to possess the whole and absolute truth.
To any neutral or unimpassioned observer of the historical discrepancies that exist between the Mapuche people and the Chilean and Argentinean states, it must appear odd that Mapuche authorities are attacked, their ceremonies ridiculed, and King Orélie Antoine mocked in the relating of an historic event that unfolded in such a crucial period for the Mapuche people. This notion is reinforced when we consider that, held up before foreign public opinion, the Mapuche nation was seen to be independent and sovereign, and thus any initiatives undertaken by the Mapuche authorities of the time were justified; not only because they were in their rights to do so, but because they had the moral obligation to defense the sovereignty of their nation.
This continued attack against the sovereigns, heirs to the Kingdom, almost 150 years after its foundation is an indication of the uneasiness still occurring in certain Creole circles caused by their coronation and current life of exile in Paris, France.
Foundation of the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia
I believe it is important to establish that at the time of the foundation of the monarchy in the Wallmapu, the Mapuche nation was independent and sovereign, and, as such, our authorities were within their full rights to freely institute the type of government that they considered to be appropriate at that time. Self-determination is a basic right of all peoples, an inherent natural right that is today recognised under International Law regulations. In particular, in the United Nations Charter; in the two International Covenants on ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ and ‘Civil and Political Rights’; principles reinforced in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These international agreements are ratified by Chile and Argentina.
With this in mind, the foundation of the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia was the sovereign decision of a people that at that time exercised their right to self-determination on their own territory, like any other people. It took place on the 17th November 1860 by the highest authorities of the Mapuche nation and the French citizen, Orélie Antoine, who had become an acclimatised Mapuche. The publicity campaign promoted by pseudo-historians, the authors of theatrical works and cinematographers trivialise this historic event and raise doubts over the legitimacy of its creation. It seems driven on denying the Mapuche the right to make decisions about their own concerns and is quite simply an outside interference in the internal affairs of the nation.
If there were a minimum of respect for the rights of the Mapuche, it would be easy to recognise that this historic event was part of the sociopolitical process of leaders who sought to restructure their national governmental institutions and administration in line with their cultural traditions. In my opinion, this was a completely rational initiative, undertaken by individuals who were concerned about the future of their nation and the peace and wellbeing of the population they represented.
It was also a wise diplomatic move that would have changed the course of our history had it been successful. For the first time the Mapuche authorities came to the conclusion that they needed to seek support and international recognition of the independence their ancestors had fought for, won and safeguarded for centuries. They had maintained the border established in 1641 through diplomatic negotiation and the deployment of military force in self-defence. Thus the labeling of Mapuche who today fight for the rights of their people as ‘separatists’ should come as a surprise to no one, considering that their struggle is founded in solid events and principles of independence forged in past battles.
According to the memoirs of King Orélie, the Mapuche debated the options of founding a republican or monarchic system of governance, and inclined towards the motion of creating a constitutional and parliamentary monarchy. This took place after a period of consultation and deliberations in the Wallmapu, promoted by the most renowned lonko (chiefs) at that time. The consultation process concluded on the 17th November 1860, following a four-day programme of activities consisting of ratifying a constitution, holding a nguillatun (religious ceremony) and military parade. In accordance with Mapuche tradition, the event ended with a celebration to commemorate the foundation of the Mapuche Kingdom.
Following a unanimous decision of the Mapuche’s civil, military and religious authorities, Orélie Antoine was proclaimed King of the Mapuche state. This solemn act was filled with symbolism and was in harmony with ancient customs. The Mapuche authorities had inaugurated a constitutional, hereditary and parliamentary monarchy, which was legal and representative enough to last into the present day, as shown by the current existence of Prince Philippe I of Araucanía and Patagonia.
In this way the Mapuche people modernised their social organisation, adapting themselves to the circumstances established at the international level, and removing obstacles from their path that, up until that point, had kept them isolated from the rest of the independent nations of Latin America. What is more, this shows us that the lonko recognised the reality that no system of government, no matter how advanced, remains static in time. This modernisation is evidence that the Mapuche population was not and is not exempt from transition, typical of socially organised peoples whose leaders look to the future.
In order to understand the Mapuche’s support for the creation of a monarchic system of government and the appointment of a King of foreign origin, I believe it is necessary to take into account at least five factors that permitted the conclusion of this agreement: the historical period, the foreign threat, the traditional system of social organisation, the significance of ceremonies and Mapuche spirituality.
It is also important to consider the personality of King Orélie Antoine, who was kind and courteous, and an expert in law and Western diplomacy. These qualities allowed him to rapidly enter into Mapuche society, winning the trust of the population and its authorities. He denounced the pretensions of the Chilean state as illegal, who had claimed to have inherited the right of dominion from Spain over the territory of Mapuche nation.
The dispute between the Mapuche King and the governments of the incipient republics of Chile and Argentina intensified after King Orélie I, was kidnapped by a platoon of the Chilean army near the Chile-Mapuche border. As we know, the Chilean authorities tried to judge him in courts that had no jurisdiction in Araucanía and under laws that were inapplicable beyond their borders. As I have already mentioned, the Spanish Crown recognised the independence of the Mapuche nation on the 6th January 1641 in the treaty of Killen, which established the Bio-Bio river as the border. This border was subsequently ratified by Spain through almost thirty bilateral treaties and therefore was in place when the Chilean state was created in 1810.
The kidnapping of King Orélie was a blow of negative publicity for the republic of Chile, since it demonstrated to the outside world that the Mapuche nation was indeed independent, that a border was in place, and that its population had exercised their right to self-determination by appointing a sovereign. In light of the facts, it is clear that Chile had no juridical or historical basis upon which to claim the inheritance of the territories that Spain had recognised as independent and had no jurisdiction over.
Unable to judge King Orélie or to deprive him of his basic human rights, thanks to the intervention of the French government, the governments of Chile and Argentina embarked upon a furious publicity campaign aimed at character assassination. They branded him a madman and committed him to a lunatic asylum before expelling him from Chile. This maneuver allowed them to launch a campaign to personally discredit King Orélie, while they attempted to detract from the importance of the formation of the Mapuche Kingdom. They claimed and still continue to maintain that the foundation of the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia was the action of an ‘eccentric adventurer’, an ‘unbalanced impostor’, a ‘crazy adventurer’, and ‘a self declared king’. These are just a few of the expressions associated with him in the ‘official history’ of both states.
One of the odd things about these accounts is the persistent allusion to the clothing of King Orélie. The fact that he wore the makun (poncho) and the trarilonko (headband), that he let his hair grow in the Mapuche style and that he spoke Mapuzugun (the Mapuche language) were all details that the winka (non-Mapuche) considered funny or strange. These were used to ridicule the sovereign and to encourage mockery and irony against him. A society founded upon Eurocentric cultural values could not accept that a European should acquire aspects of the ‘culture of savages’, suggesting that because he wore Mapuche costume, King Orélie Antoine was somehow unfit to run the Mapuche state.
Referring to the relationship he established with the lonko and the Mapuche people from different regions of the Wallmapu, in one of his interviews, King Orélie Antoine commented: “I had learned their language and never exercised my influence if it was not in their best interest. This is how my rule was irresistibly established over them. They love me. I enjoy their absolute trust, since I have never deceived or disappointed them. Soon […] they will proclaim and applaud me as their sovereign.” (1)
Traditional Mapuche organisation and the Monarchic system
The spokespersons and pseudo-historians of winka society claim that there is a lack of coherence on the part of those who chose to create a monarchic rather than republican system of government. This supposition is not to be trusted, and is typical of those who make judgments without first finding out about our traditions, customs and system of social organisation. However, since they have the backing of the mass media, this interpretation constitutes the “official version”. It is the vision that prevails and is promoted through the educational system to the whole of society, including the Mapuche themselves, who are forced to be a part of it. Nonetheless, this argument is based on a supposed rivalry between the two systems of social organisation, which is not so accurate, as we will see further on.
In order to understand the logic that motivated the Mapuche authorities to create a monarchy and not a republic, we must consider the 324 years (1536-1860) of interaction with the Spanish Crown, the Catholic Church and the emerging republics. This was therefore a period in which the Mapuche undoubtedly became familiar with Western culture and the functioning of the monarchic system. For this reason, their adoption of aspects of Western culture should not come as a surprise. The decision to elect a system of government that was common at that time was a result of this trend of interaction with other cultures. It is also worth noting that at that period the monarchic system of governance was operating in almost all of Europe, and is a model that still exists to some extent today in a significant number of countries in the European Union.
Moreover, I should highlight the fact that during these centuries of inter-relation with Spain, roughly thirty treaties were signed with parliaments of differing nature. During this time there were wars but also long periods of peace, particularly following the treaty of Killen in 1641, which established the frontier between the Mapuche nation and the territories administered by Spain. This allowed relations to develop at every level; as we know, there was a fluid commercial, diplomatic and cooperative interchange between the two nations.
During the ‘Santiago Accord’ in April 1774 the formality of diplomatic relations with Spain developed to such a point that the Mapuche nation assigned ambassadors to the city of Santiago. Four were appointed to represent each wixan-mapu (geographical regions making up the Mapuche territory), which maintained a high degree of regional autonomy, before and during contact with Spain, within Araucanía and Patagonia, or Wallmapu, as it is known today.
As we are aware, all international treaties place obligations upon the contracting parties. Among the commitments contracted by the Mapuche authorities was an agreement to allow the missionaries to carry out their evangelical work in areas specifically indicated by the Mapuche authorities and placed under their protection. As a result of these agreements, right from the beginning the Church set up a few parishes in Araucanía – in effect, “the first Franciscans arrived in Penco on the 9th November 1553.” (2) In addition to propagating the Christian faith, the monasteries that were established were real centres of learning about Western culture for the Mapuche, who were taught to read and write the Spanish language. These Western enclaves inside Mapuche territory created close cultural contact with the Mapuche elite, since in addition to local young residents; they were attended by the sons of the lonko. This allowed many of them to augment their knowledge of the Western world, and Europe in particular.
To this we must add the enclaves that Spain established in certain commercially strategic points of the Mapuche territory. This was a mutually beneficial arrangement and naturally was agreed upon by the Mapuche authorities, as was the case with the port of Valdivia. If we consider all of these elements that demonstrate the fluid social interaction of daily life between members of both cultures, it debases the version of a large number of winka authors who affirm that the Mapuche were ‘misled by Orélie Antoine’, supposedly failing to understand Western culture or what a monarchy was.
The participation of Mapuche authorities (lonko, machi, toki, ngenpiñ, werrken, weupife, etc.) in the foundation of the Kingdom is portrayed as insignificant in the official interpretations of our history, shown only as mere spectators of the historic event. By excluding the lonko from the formation of the Kingdom they seek to justify the widespread notion that Orélie Antoine ‘proclaimed himself’ as a King of Araucanía and Patagonia. What is more, the ignorance of these historians concerning the traditional organisational structure of the Mapuche people and the significance of their assemblies and traditions means they are reduced to speculation, with overtones of racism, irony, ridicule and falsehood that knows no limits.
Some of the cultural traditions that the Mapuche maintain to this day must be explained, for example the posts or titles of the lonko, which are generally inherited. This tradition is not very different from titles of nobility such as Count, Marquis, Duke, etc. which as we know are hereditary. In times of war, the National Council of Lonko would appoint a toki (supreme chief) who was also head of the civil-military government that was set up for as long as war lasted in the Mapuche country.
Furthermore, there is the role of the machin (3), a religious institution made up of the machi (spiritual guides), which like the Catholic Church, undeniably exercised its influence in the decision-making and the management of politics at the National Council of Lonko. The prophecy of the machi concerning the arrival of a kume fütha winka (honourable white man) who would come to fight shoulder to shoulder with the Mapuche to defend the Wallmapu, had enormous influence in the acceptance of Orélie Antoine as the Fütha Apo Toki or King of the Mapuche people.
Finally, it is also worth considering that the new monarchic structure did not significantly alter the traditional social structure of the Mapuche people. For instance, the Fütha Toki became the King, the Council of Fütha Lonko or Council of Elders became the Council of the Kingdom and the National Council of Lonko became the Council of the State. Some lonko were appointed to occupy various ministerial posts, whilst others were named as generals and went on to form the Council of War. For his part, the toki at that time, in this case Toki Kilapan, was named Minister and Chief of the Council of War.
The Legitimacy of the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia
Here it must be underlined that the formation of the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia was founded by the most renowned Mapuche authorities at that time, such as Lonkos’ Mañil, Montril, Quilahueque, Calfuchan, Mariluan, Toki Kilapan, and the authorities of the Puelmapu, headed by Lonko Kalfukura. All of them were members of the Council of War and as such were responsible for commanding the troops of the Mapuche state. They were more aware than anyone of the omnipresent threat that Chile and Argentina represented for the security and national integrity of the Mapuche nation. The situation worsened with the introduction of symbolic government decrees of an expansionist nature, military incursions across the border and encouragement to invade by politicians and the media. Alongside this, we must consider the imbalance in military power, the lack of recognition of Mapuche independence by other governments and the inexistence of relations with other states.
Therefore the high level of representation of Mapuche authorities in the foundation of the Kingdom is completely understandable. Moreover, in my opinion, this was a shrewd decision, as a monarchy system under the command of a European offered the highest guarantee of success in leading the country and handling diplomatic relations, given the huge threat to peace at that time. He could achieve both international recognition of our independence and military support in order to defend the frontier, an aspiration that we, the Mapuche of today, should applaud.
To understand the customs among the Mapuche and when they are applied to wider society, let us look at a few examples. During the Arauco War and once it had ended, if the Toki physically survived, his prestige and his title did not fade away. The Mapuche authorities and the population would continue to identify him as the Toki and he would automatically become a member of the Council of Elders. At his death, he would be buried with all the honours associated with the rank of toki. In the case of the lonko, titles are hereditary. In accordance with this tradition, we can affirm that the appointment of Orélie Antoine as Fütha Apo Toki is equivalent to the title of King, with all the powers that it represents in both European and universal terms, while also being a hereditary title.
Another important detail that ‘experts’ on the Mapuche monarchy ignore is the character and significance of the Mapuche assemblies. The Fütha Koyog was a parliament, or civic-military-religious assembly of a sacred nature. It was a solemn event in which proceedings were observed in accordance with ancestral ceremonial customs belonging to the Mapuche culture. It could only be called by the National Council of Lonkos’ and the attendance of representatives from all of the meli wixan mapu was obligatory.
The National Council of Lonkos’, the supreme organ of the Mapuche people, was composed of representatives of the meli wixan mapu. If one of the wixan-mapu or Füthamapu did not attend the assembly, it would go ahead regardless and its resolutions or opinions were definitive. The representatives of one sector of the Puelmapu did not arrive in time for the act of creating the Kingdom, and therefore were automatically presumed as having agreed with the decision taken in the Fütha Koyog of November 1860. This was a representation of those Füthamapu that were present, and those from the Puelmapu that were not present confirmed their support for the agreements that had been reached several days later. It should be noted that the Fütha Koyog was only convened in order to take decisions of a national character concerning specific subjects, such as to elect or confirm the toki, to celebrate treaties, declare war or approve the terms of peace.
Mapuche spirituality contributed to the Mapuche’s support for a monarchic system and the role that the machi (spiritual guides) perform in social and political life through the various civil and military ceremonies that took place, and still take place, within the Mapuche communities. There are a great number of testimonies that assert that the machi had foretold the arrival of Orélie Antoine and the important mission that he would carry out in the struggle of the Mapuche people. This added a mystical element to the appointment of Orélie Antoine to the throne of Araucanía and Patagonia. The prophecy (wuldugun) is revealed during the Nguillatun ceremony (one of the most solemn religious ceremonies of the Mapuche) in which the priest or priestess (pewun-machi) is possessed by the spirit (pilly) and enters into a trance (küimi) as the ceremony reaches its peak. Assisted by the interpreter (ngechalmachife), he or she transmits prophecies about happenings relating to the community and the Mapuche people.
For a people like the Mapuche, who have a profound belief in the divinity of the spirits, the power of nature, Mother Earth and Ngenechen (God), the announcement of the machi created a great expectation throughout Mapuche society. In light of this, we can understand the reason for the unanimous acceptance and support offered to Orélie Antoine by the Mapuche people and the Lonko, who promoted the monarchy.
In conclusion the appointment of Orélie Antoine as King of Araucanía and Patagonia fulfilled all of the normal institutional and even spiritual proceedings of the Mapuche nation. It was framed within tradition, an integral part of the customary law of the Mapuche people, and therefore of international law.
If we consider all of these elements, we can argue unreservedly that the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia was legitimately instituted and although to some this might appear shocking, it did emerge in a natural manner. This justifies the fact that it has remained in force for almost a century and a half, since it represents a historic mandate made with the free and informed consent of our ancestral authorities. What is particularly important is that this took place prior to the annexation, division and repartition of our territory by neighbouring countries.
The Kingdom is not only a legally constituted sovereignty, but also morally valid because it is the result of a decision taken by a people that at that time were free, before the genocide began. Therefore, with or without the approval of the Chilean or Argentinean authorities, the Kingdom can once again be brought alive in the Wallmapu. This can only happen when the Mapuche have the autonomy to make a free and informed decision together with the Royal House, headed by its current successor, Prince Philippe I.
Marrichiweu!
Bibliography:
Historia del Reino de Araucania - Una dinastía de príncipes franceses en América Latina. Philippe, Príncipe de Araucania - El Dorado Biblioteca Hispanoamericana.
Cuatrocientos Años de Misión entre Los Araucanos. (p. 56). Albert Noggler (Capuchino). Editorial San Francisco, Padres Las Casas, Temuco, Chile.
Mapuche Ayer - Hoy. Martin Alonqueo Piutrin. Editorial "San Francisco", Padre Las Casas - Chile. 1985