Chile Forum

How interesting that the Puelche indians (also called Guennakin) were a pampas people, little is known about them, their language or culture, though they mingled in and out of the other major known indigenous people but apparently remained separate and mysterious.

Nueva Imperial in the IX region has the greatest mapuche ratio of power that is official, registered and appointed.


p out.

.

A Google search....Nueva Imperial looks like a place I would really be interested in visiting. On such short notice, I won't be able to make the Wuetripantu on June 24, New Year on the Mapuche calendar. Maybe next year for a little mudai...



Vicki

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:A Google search....Nueva Imperial looks like a place I would really be interested in visiting. On such short notice, I won't be able to make the Wuetripantu on June 24, New Year on the Mapuche calendar. Maybe next year for a little mudai...



Vicki

Vicki,
Nueva Imperial is quite a nice town.. not too small and not huge either..
here is a pic of an amazing wood carving at the entrance..

here are some more.. http://www.allchile.net/chilephotos/thu ... p?album=53

That is an amazing wood carving! I truly think I will put this place on our must-visit list. Thanks for the picture...going to check out the rest now.

Vicki

You know, it is puzzling to me, and interesting, that there are many people in this area (Futa) who have strong indigenous features, but it is "verboten" to even ask about indigenous heritage. I remarked to someone I know that they were extremely strong and hearty, and they said, "I am indio", but then waved dismissively and laughed like it was a stupid joke. I really don't know how indigenous people are viewed, but I suspect.....

Vicki

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote: I remarked to someone I know that they were extremely strong and hearty, and they said, "I am indio", but then waved dismissively and laughed like it was a stupid joke. I really don't know how indigenous people are viewed, but I suspect.....

Vicki

I think what you're getting at is sad and unfortunately true. Chileans seem to be embarrassed at the possibility of having indigenous ancestry. When I was in Chile studying I taught english at a high school in Reñaca; I think that within my first week I was asked three times if people in the United States “piensa que somos todos indios,” clearly showing disgust at the prospect.

I think it's a really sad situation, but the topic is clearly deeply engrained in the national physci.

As the United States are themselves becoming more and more mixed, American views on racial composition really shouldn't matter much.

RWS wrote:As the United States are themselves becoming more and more mixed, American views on racial composition really shouldn't matter much.

Hi RW - Shouldn't is the operative word, I suppose. Panama, Costa Rica, both have the same racial issues, lighter is better. A recent poll in the US (I apologize, I can't remember the name of it, nor do I have the site at the tip of my fingers) shows that 3 out of 10 US Citizens admit they have racial prejudices. And frankly I figure, that's just the 3 out of 10 who are honest enough to admit it.

But, back to the subject...I find it interesting, in a sad way, that a majority of indigenous people themselves feel inferior to those of European or Spanish descent. An interesting group called the Kuna who live off the caribe coast of Panama on little islands with some autonomy. They have never fallen to western ways, and are fiercely proud and independent. I don't know enough about the Mapuche, or many other indigenous nations to figure out why some societies degenerate, and some flourish. Whether it's "outside of the native nation" acknowledgment of their status and appreciation of their culture that makes a profound difference, or close, un-broken generational isolation from western ways plays a large part. The Mapuche of Nueva seem to have close cultural ties to their ancestors and seem to have a higher standard of life than in other parts of Chile and Argentina.

It's sad and regrettable, it just isn't how we might think matters should be, but such prejudice and even self-denigration has long (perhaps, always) been part of society, even of how people view themselves, everywhere -- almost (the sole exception I can think of now is the Japanese treatment of the aborginal Caucasoid Ainu, who have been treated much as blacks were in the Jim Crow South). Even in China, now and for thousands of years, a lighter-skinned woman is generally considered much more attractive than her swarthier sister -- for some hundreds of years, white rice powder was any middle- or upper-class woman's most basic cosmetic; a bit ironic, when one considers the present government's repressive treatment of Caucasoid Uighurs in the Chinese Far West. In Ethiopia, the one sub-Saharan African country never fully conquered by Europeans and possesser of the historically most highly developed (and most enduring) sub-Saharan African culture, "lighter is better" has been the by-word . . . well, seemingly forever (the long-dominant Amharic tribe actually call themselves "white", though some are as dark-skinned as any American black man, and the "blacks" -- Galla, Oromos, others -- not only accept the discrimination but appear to have internalized it). One could go on and on.

It's just a part of human nature, I think, to vacillate between the extremes of hubris and abasement. I do think that a real resolution (not the false and groundless pride of fake ancestries or twisted history or biology) is possible, leading to a realistic view of oneself and others. I simply think the resolution must be made by each person, in each generation.

RWS wrote:It's sad and regrettable, it just isn't how we might think matters should be, but such prejudice and even self-denigration has long (perhaps, always) been part of society, even of how people view themselves, everywhere -- almost (........................) I simply think the resolution must be made by each person, in each generation.

I know this may seem a little off topic, but really...not. RW, when I read what you wrote, I understood, but take exception to your view. I feel that the resolution to eradicate prejudice is the responsibility of each generation, granted it may take many, but a start is better than nothing. Which leads me to an interesting teacher in the midwest, who in 1968 taught a controversial lesson to her third graders, coincidentally, the day after MLK was assasinated. In a nutshell, walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Here is the link to the Frontline show, one of the most watched, most requested archives on the site.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /view.html

I find the Frontline addition relevant to the way all segments of societies treat indigenous, blacks, or separate class societies. I hope if you view this post, you will take the time to watch the Frontline segment. As an aside, lots of other excellent segments on many other subjects.

Chile would also do well to explore the roots of the racial stigmas that are pervasive regarding indigenous - although to be honest, I'm not exposed to much interaction here.

Vicki

It seems to me that in the patagonia the greatest percieved issue to overcome is the enviroment. Indios, gringos, noruegos, alemanes or where ever you came from becomes a secondary issue and it becomes more an "us" against "lo que viene". It would be an affront to site any other difference before that single, radical and overwhelming issue of the patagonia....as we go furthur north and into more pleasant latitudes, the difference thaws little by little...maybe with the more spare time we have, these things make more of a difference...it shouldn't be so but it is and hopefully this will not change in patagonia.

p out.


.

el puelche wrote:It seems to me that in the patagonia the greatest percieved issue to overcome is the enviroment. Indios, gringos, noruegos, alemanes or where ever you came from becomes a secondary issue and it becomes more an "us" against "lo que viene". It would be an affront to site any other difference before that single, radical and overwhelming issue of the patagonia....
.

Absolutely P. I am in no way qualified to expound on that, but it rings true as far as my limited experiences are to date.

el puelche wrote:as we go furthur north and into more pleasant latitudes, the difference thaws little by little...maybe with the more spare time we have, these things make more of a difference...it shouldn't be so but it is and hopefully this will not change in patagonia.

p out.
.

Above, did you mean the "lack of difference thaws"? I think that is what you were getting at. Here in Patagonia, everyone is too busy readying for the winter, or summer, or dry times, or too much rain, to care if someone is a gringo, or indian, or german. Not that it doesn't get talked about on these long, winter nights mind you, but you are right that it really doesn't much matter when you have things to do that are important.

An interesting site on/by Mapuches:

http://www.mapuche-nation.org/english/links.htm

I've a theory, historically tested but not conclusive, that, at the personal level, discrimination by group is closely related to density of population: in thinly populated areas, because we human beings are by nature quite social, all persons are judged more by internal individual characteristics than by perceived characteristics of the groups to which they involuntarily belong (e.g., "males" or "whites", rather than "Methodists" or "Republicans"); as density rises, each person's ability or willingness to discriminate individual-by-individual becomes overwhelmed and, perforce (or perhaps only for convenience perceived as necessity), he judges by identifiable group characteristics ("all Danes are dumb", "all Americans are thieves", etc. -- 'ever notice that most such attributes by aggregate are negative?).

Of course, other factors -- economic difficulties, disenfranchisement, etc. -- also affect discrimination by group*. But I think that my assessment of discrimination unaffected by factors extraneous to personal interaction may be accurate. What do you think?


*Note that I don't condemn discrimination altogether (who would object to a person quiet by nature discriminating in his aversion to associating with noise-makers?). I simply regret our human tendency to discriminate against individual persons through an attribution to each the actual or perceived attributes of groups to which they belong without choice on their parts.

Ever seen an old postcard or photograph of Mapuche gatherings? What are those hockey stick things they all have? How interesting:

Palin is a Mapuche game. The ritual celebration is accompanied by prayers, ritual dances and feasting that fortify both individual and communal relationships. It can be played between two friendly communities or sometimes between antagonistic communities to settle differences and avoid armed conflicts.

I know, it's a goofy stretch, but I thought it was a little funny that a potential VP candidate is named Palin, and lauded as a "Hockey Mom".