In the same way that Ethiopia and Thailand found a way to maneuver and/or resist so they survived into present day without being colonized, do you see a chance for the Mapuche people in South America to have remained independent until today? They were never fully colonized by the Spanish; it was the new Chilean state which finished the job. What scenarios would have led to a free Mapuche land?
Free Mapuches?
- Thread starter carturo222
- Start date
This almost happened. In the 1830s to reassert British claims to the south atlantic against argentina many in parliament wanted to fund the mapuches against the slowly encroaching argentines in patagonia. Have the debate succeed and argentina be belligerent over the south atlantic claims and you will see the british fund the mapuches. With some luck the mapuches can hold on.
Well.... you could throw some support behind this man:
en.m.wikipedia.org
Orélie-Antoine de Tounens - Wikipedia
A foreigner declaring himself king is the opposite of the scenario I was hoping for.Well.... you could throw some support behind this man:
Orélie-Antoine de Tounens - Wikipedia
he was supported by the Mapuches though. It would resemble a very large Brookes in Sarawak scenario. foreign origin but overtime nativized monarchy
mainly from British Exploits In South America: A History Of British Activities In Exploration, Military Adventure, Diplomacy, Science, And Trade, In Latin America by William Koebel.
Oooooh, Archive.org has a public domain PDF. This will be fascinating.
the 1923 Edition as well as Empire of the Deep by Ben Wilson are best for this subject
I believe your going to need to go WAY back for an Mapuche nation state. Everyone brings up Orélie-Antoine de Tounens, but I don’t think he would be able to get support from abroad.
I think you need the Mapuche to form a unified nation, probably in the 16th century or 17th century. My best guess is Lautaro not being killed so early, making him the face of a unified Mapuche front, and possibly to consolidate control over Patagonia
I think you need the Mapuche to form a unified nation, probably in the 16th century or 17th century. My best guess is Lautaro not being killed so early, making him the face of a unified Mapuche front, and possibly to consolidate control over Patagonia
It comes from my house! My beloved Dordogne ! 😂Well.... you could throw some support behind this man:
Orélie-Antoine de Tounens - Wikipedia
My father had the opportunity to work with one of his descendants. And there is still an embassy of Patagonia in Toulouse, in the south of France.
mapuche lautarino
Banned
Our people never united to fight against the Chilean state in the war of pacification, I doubt very much that there is a Mapuche state,
but we can lead Chile and Argentina into chaos, today if they continue with their Rasista practices.
but we can lead Chile and Argentina into chaos, today if they continue with their Rasista practices.
Their best chance is even before the spanish arrival, when the incas tried to conquer their lands back in c. XV. Fearing a new wave of conquests from their northern neighbors, mapuches could have banded together in city states or something like that with a common culture and intricated trade networks. So when the spanish arrives in c. XVI they find a unified yet descentralized group of many mapuche tribe-states cooperating to prevent inca advance. Lets assume that diseases takes their toll and many mapuches died during the conflict, but key people like Lautaro or Caupolican lived long enough to unify under a single flag the mapuche. This brutal resistance wasn't unnoticed in Europe and soon other colonials powers would like to have a trade deal and cooperate with the mapuche nation just to mess with the spanish.
Fast forward decades and centuries, when Chile got their independence, the lands in their southern frontier were inhabited by way more natives, organized and centralized in a single nation under the protection of a european power that slowly granted them economic and diplomatic independence. Chile wont go south if it means war with the british, french or other empire and would let the mapuche live in peace. Eventually trade relations and cultural interchange would be common. The mapuche nation could be a thriving native american nation after all and even they could be as developed that their chilean or argentinean neighbors.
Fast forward decades and centuries, when Chile got their independence, the lands in their southern frontier were inhabited by way more natives, organized and centralized in a single nation under the protection of a european power that slowly granted them economic and diplomatic independence. Chile wont go south if it means war with the british, french or other empire and would let the mapuche live in peace. Eventually trade relations and cultural interchange would be common. The mapuche nation could be a thriving native american nation after all and even they could be as developed that their chilean or argentinean neighbors.
This sounds like the end result is a "Dominion of Fireland" or something that ends up like New Zealand. But considering most of Patagonia isn't ideal for settling before you can get good irrigation networks (and discovery of oil), the parts actually inhabited by Mapuche (i.e. not Tierra del Fuego itself which would have a Royal Navy base, civilian whaling/sealing infrastructure, etc. and of course sheep ranching) could retain a lot of independence.