Triple Alliance War: Roca at Curupaytí

Roca at Curupaytí

Julio Argentino Roca participated in the Battle of Curupaytí, where our troops were defeated. This is how General Garmendia described that return:

“I saw Sarmiento dead – Dominguito, son of the hero –, carried in a blanket by four wounded soldiers: that livid face, full of mud, had the brutal appearance of death (…)

I saw in the distance that Roca came out alone with a torn flag; Around that glorious banner reigned the emptiness of the tomb. When he approached and avoided his sullen horse, I could make out that one of them was riding on his rump: it was Solier covered in blood. Friend had saved friend.

Rivas, so brave on that day as a General on the battlefield, I saw him moaning because of his wound. Anomaly of the brave: many times his own blood troubles them far from the heat of the slaughter.

Ayala, Calvete, Victorica, Mansilla (...) and who knows how many more, all wounded, dripping blood, retreated in silence (...).

That procession of bloody rags was endless, among which was headless Darragueira; of dying people, of unbreakable heroes, of shattered harmonies, of pieces without artillerymen, of horses without restraints (...).

Then it was that the commander-in-chief [Mitre] with his General Staff appeared before my eyes, fatigued by so much horror (...) then I just emotionally suffered the gloomy silence of the soul, that loneliness of ghosts of defeat, and I understood for the first time “In my life what was a great national disaster”

Roca and the "Day of the Race"

Columbus Day

By Rolando Hanglin | LA NACION





We Argentines have a defect that is, at the same time, our cardinal virtue. We are, in large part, grandchildren of gringos. Therefore, we ignore almost everything regarding the history of our country. We are part of the human tide that came down from the ships between 1880 and 1920, when the corpses of thousands of victims were not yet well covered by the pious earth. Indians and Christians, hostages and captives, chieftain (caciques) and soldiers (milicos), all of them who fell in the great Indian-Christian war, between 1820 and 1890.

 

Being, then, half gringos, we could know little about the raids, the forts, Roca and Villegas, Pincén and Calfucurá. To us, the Indians were guys with feathers that appeared in cowboy movies! Always losing the battle.

We are, in large part, grandchildren of gringos. Therefore, we ignore almost everything regarding the history of our country.

That is why we are surprised that, today, the supposed descendants of those Indians, today called "Mapuches", claim properties in places like Bariloche, Aluminé, La Angostura and even Toay, La Pampa.



Let's go in parts.

Actually, the term "Mapuche" was invented by the North American ethnologist Edmond E. Smith in 1850, and later spread in different countries of America. The meaning is clear: mapu: land; che: people. In the same way, myself, a fan of the Patagonian language (mapu-dungún) I have baptized my weekend country house "Epu-Trehua" (the two dogs) and a little chalet I have in Chapadmalal, "Antu-Catán " (house of the sun) without claiming any historical roots.

Reading the works of Lucio V. Mansilla, Estanislao Zeballos, Manuel Prado and other authors from the time of the forts, we never find the word "Mapuche". No such tribe or nation was ever spoken of. The literature of 1820-1880 does speak of the Pampas, the Serranos, the Araucanians or Chileans, the Vorogas, the Tehuelches, the Tubichaminís. But the word Mapuche never appears. History and anthropology agree that Argentine territory, from San Luis to the south, was occupied by the northern Tehuelches (pampas, aoniken), the southern Tehuelches (pampas, guenaken) and the Tehuelches who had crossed over to the island, known as onas. These countrymen were part of a community of hunter-gatherers. They did not farm the land or uphold the concept of private property or national boundaries. Just that of "living space", which moved settlements in those immense extensions, always looking for abundant hunting of guanacos, deer, piches, ostriches. They occupied, then, without occupying it, an immense country. It is believed that these Tehuelches (or their ancestors) stamped the rock walls of the Cueva de las Manos 8000 years ago. Casamiquela affirms that when Carmen de Patagones was founded, the Tehuelches began to traffic rhea feathers and guanaco skins. They did the same in Punta Arenas, in 1850, and in 1865 with the Welsh colony, in the Chubut valley. It was an activity of economic significance far superior to what it may seem today. All the testimonies agree that the Tehuelche people were peaceful and dispersed.



Hence, it's quite unusual to witness the emergence, even in 2012, of communes, movements, or unions identifying as "Mapuche" that assert claims over territories in Chubut, Río Negro, Neuquén, and Santa Cruz. Where do these groups originate? Are they indigenous peoples of our nation, to whom the Republic owes redress for its past injustices in usurping their lands and undermining their means of sustenance?

The Mapuche is Chilean and entered the sphere of the Argentine pampas in 1820, expelled by the internal wars in Chile.

We are going to leave the answer to Mr. Rodolfo Casamiquela, ethnologist and anthropologist who died in 2008, but not without writing 24 books and 200 monographs on the subject. Casamiquela, born in Jacobacci, considered himself the last man capable of correctly pronouncing the northern Tehuelche language (that is, "pampa") and his verdict was overwhelming: "The Mapuches are Chileans."

Other concepts: "Today only the Mapuche is spoken of. The Tehuelches suppressed themselves or forgot their own history, despite the fact that today there are many descendants, such as the Chagallo, Yanquetruz, Sayhueque, Foyel, Catriel, Chiquichano, Chelqueta, Chingolé, Chalao, Chacamata, Cual. These families are the Tehuelches that remain, that is, the so-called pampas. They were a lineage of enormous potential power, which gradually became Araucanized or Mapuchized based on their language. The Mapuche is Chilean and enters the sphere of the Argentine pampas in 1820, expelled by the internal wars of Chile. Many Chilean Indian chiefs sided with the King of Spain and, in the context of a war to the death, crossed the mountain range to save their lives. Here they were received by some relatives and , little by little, authorized by Brigadier Juan Manuel de Rosas to settle in the provinces of the Río de la Plata.

One wonders if the Tehuelches, a native people of Pampa and Patagonia, were exterminated by the Chilean Araucanians, or by the Argentine military forces, or by someone.

Casamiquela: "The issue is the language. To negotiate with Spanish, the so-called parliaments were held, that is, oratory and diplomacy assemblies where each chief (ulmén) with his little capitains (capitanejos) or little chieftain (caciquillos), and the representatives of the White or huinca (derived from the Incas, who also tried to subdue the Araucanians with little luck) competed in speeches and rhetorical figures to "adjust peace". In this diplomatic field, the Mapuche language was far superior to Tehuelche. Precise, clear, beautiful, simple, rude, Mapudungun is a very valuable language. With it religion penetrates, then the Mapuche predominates over the Tehuelche".



Our conclusion is that the Chilean Mapuches did not annihilate the Argentine Tehuelches; instead, they formed separate federations where Mapuche military leadership consistently held sway. As corroborated by meticulous historical travelers like the Englishman Musters, the Tehuelches were often characterized as "nomads, wanderers, free spirits, and undisciplined."

Professor Casamiquela asserts, "The Mapuche presence in Argentina lacks deep historical roots. They have been here for around a century." In this respect, they are akin to the Italians, Irish, or Croats. Casamiquela further explains, "When Professor Erice, the author of the most comprehensive Mapuche dictionary, arrived in our country, he found no speakers of that language in Viedma. Here in Jacobacci, there were the Linares, descendants of a captive bearing that surname who married the daughter of a Tehuelche chieftain, based near the Juncal lagoon, but they were Tehuelches. Creoles with surnames like Entrage or Castelo also belong to the Tehuelche heritage. In summary, the claims that the Mapuches make today regarding land rights... they simply do not have a historical basis. This is history, not conjecture. Currently, political dynamics are in play. Consequently, Chilean Mapuches declare themselves as Argentines and begin asserting a long-standing presence in our country. Historians are not primarily concerned with this aspect. What a politician or lawyer may argue... that is another matter altogether."



The tall and pensive Tehuelches were subjected to colonization and undoubtedly deceived by both Argentine settlers and Chilean Araucanians. Historically, the name Patagonia conjures images of a land inhabited by men with exceptionally large feet and towering stature.

Casamiquela explains, "The Spaniards, who were of shorter stature, often looked down at the Tehuelches as they stood atop the dunes. In 1896, a Frenchman named Delavaux conducted an excavation along Route 40 in southern Chubut, unearthing a Tehuelche burial site and measuring the skeleton of the interred individual, which reached a height of 1.99 meters. Another excavation, this time in Península Valdez, confirmed individuals reaching a height of two meters. They are indeed the tallest ethnic group in the world."

While they were of considerable stature, the Tehuelches were also known for their vices, free-spirited customs, docility, and kindness. They formed amicable relations with the Welsh settlers in Chubut and, in general, did not cause trouble. They allowed themselves to be influenced first by the Chilean Araucanians and later by the Argentine Republic.

One of the last heroic figures of the Tehuelche or Pampa lineage was undoubtedly Chief Pincén, whose name was remembered as Vicente, Juan, or Francisco Pincén, depending on the region. The surname is correctly pronounced as Pisen, Piseñ, or Pincel, always emphasizing the accent on the "i."



There are four pictures of Pincén. In these images, we see him with his characteristic fluke, colt boots, a short spear, his testicles hanging around his neck, his bare torso, long hair held in place by a headband, and he appears strikingly similar to Alberto Olmedo! He could also bear a resemblance to Don Alberto Rodríguez Saá, though the latter, more robust in build, still possesses the stature and charisma of his Ranquelino forebears.

Some individuals reject Columbus Day because it seems to categorize humanity on the same plane as creatures like golden retrievers or Hereford cows. The truth is, all humans belong to the same species, but there exist significant ethnic variations; a Swede is not the same as a Senegalese.

The tall and introspective Tehuelches were subjected to colonization and, undoubtedly, taken advantage of by Argentine settlers and Chilean Araucanians, who primarily ventured into our pampas to steal cattle and capture fair-haired women. Along the way, unfortunate confrontations with Argentinians, including violent encounters, were inevitable. It was an unfortunate reality.

However, that's a different story. For now, we conclude this humble note with a traditional Patagonian greeting, one that is still used today when travelers cross paths: "Mari-mari." This phrase literally translates to "ten-ten." Wishing you good fortune, and sometimes, to convey a warmer farewell in passing, it is articulated more fully: "Mari-mari peñí." In other words, "Goodbye, brother."

NOTE: The sources for this article come from the website "Los Matuastos- Periodismo" (Sunday September, the 9th 2012) and "Pincén, vida y leyenda" wrote by Juan José Estévez, and published in 2011.

Conquest of the desert: The huge mistake of the General Roca cancellation

General Roca cancellation: A huge historical mistake

By Roberto Ferrero. 


An article for controversy. Roberto Ferrero, another historical exponent of the Socialism of the National Left, presents us in this article with the vision and political position that the SIN historically had before Roquism. Pure historical materialism to defend national unification and lay the institutional foundations for the configuration of the country as we know it today. The death of no one is justified, the causes of the need to unify Patagonia to the National State against the imperialist threat coming from Chile are exposed.

Let's place these matters on the agenda, engage in open discussions, and use the resulting conclusions as a foundation for the ongoing reconstruction of our esteemed Latin American Nation. Such is the essence of this message.

Marcos D. Vega - 

Author: Roberto A. Ferrero, Former President of the Junta Provincial de Historia of Córdoba 

To my considerable surprise, I recently learned about the endeavor to remove General Julio A. Roca's name from the boulevard bearing his name in our city. I believe this decision is a significant error, possibly driven by a well-intentioned and compassionate concern for the plight of our indigenous populations. However, I find that the primary arguments in favor of this change lack substantial support.

These arguments, championed by the Argentine-German author Osvaldo Bayer – who openly advocates for Patagonia's separation from the rest of our country to establish an independent nation – essentially rest on two points. Both of these points, however, are as ahistorical and contextually flawed as each other. The more assertive of the two seeks to label General Roca as a "genocidal figure." Nevertheless, I consider this claim to be both semantically and politically frivolous. What is genocide, after all? It is the intentional extermination of an ethnic or social group solely because of their identity, typically perpetrated against people who are defenseless. For instance, the Turks brutally killed one and a half million Armenians, but they didn't harm any of their own. That is a true instance of genocide. Similarly, the Nazis annihilated six million Jews without persecuting or killing a single German. This, too, constitutes genocide.

But the case of Roca and the Conquest of the Desert is totally different. It was not a genocide, but the culmination of a very long war, in which the indigenous had, between 1820 and 1882 -according to the detailed inventory of the indigenous historian Martínez Zarazola- 7,598 casualties, but at the same time caused the death of 3,200 Creole (fortineros or fort soldiers), small owners, travelers, landowners, women, authorities, children...) In the so-called "Great Invasion" of Calfucurá in the province of Buenos Aires at the end of 1875, only in Azul the malón (Indian raid) murdered 400 residents, captivated 500 and seized 300,000 animals that, as always, were sold in Chile with juicy profits. (By the way: the chieftain Casimiro Catriel lived in Azul, used a carriage and had an open account in the city's bank...) Was Azul's then a Creole genocide caused by the Indians? By no means: it was a stage of this protracted and cruel war. Those who fought against Roca were not unfortunate Indians like those who now suffer unjustly on the banks of the Pilcomayo or in the suburbs of Rosario to which they have emigrated, compatriots who must be helped and integrated into their diversity.

They were soldiers representing a quasi-indigenous state that competed with and challenged the national government while practicing slavery on both captive whites and Indians purchased in Chile. Reflecting on Mariano Bejarano's 1872 official visit, sent by the national government to Chief Sayhueque, leader of the "Country of Apples" (today Neuquén), the indigenous writer Curruhuinca-Roux remarked, "Bejarano's visit was an official encounter between government envoys of two separate entities. The raids were not merely defensive tactics against 'invading' whites but were actual expeditions aimed at capturing loot, akin to terrestrial Vikings – part pirates, part merchants. This plunder was later traded in Chile, whose authorities supported these raids to weaken the Argentine government and gain control of Patagonia. We must avoid simplifying history into a Manichaean and naive narrative. The true story is far more intricate than the childlike portrayal of heroes and villains, victims and oppressors. While there's much more to be said about this historically inaccurate first argument, it suffices for now.

The second argument posits that the original indigenous peoples were dispossessed of lands in the Pampean plain and vast Patagonian regions, but this assertion is far from accurate. Concerning the origin of the indigenous tribes inhabiting our pampas – mostly variants or offshoots of the Araucanian people – only an utter lack of knowledge about our country's history and that of Chile can account for such an error. In fact, these trans-Andean tribes cannot be considered "original" since they only began migrating from beyond the Andes into our country in the early 18th century.

In comparison, the natives of this land were more 'original' because the resilient pioneers of the frontier and Creole soldiers, officers, and leaders of the Conquest of the Desert – with the exception of individuals like Fotheringham (English) and Nicolas Levalle (Italian) – held no less valid claims to these lands than the Ranqueles, Pampas, or Manzaneros. Their ancestors inhabited these lands at the same or even earlier times. Regarding the designation of "landowners" asserted by indigenous tribes and their modern advocates, it must be acknowledged but with one important caveat: the incredibly fertile and expansive pampa belonged to all Argentines, whether Creole or indigenous, native or descendants of immigrants, those who already occupied it and those who awaited their turn in the ports to populate it.

Calfucurá, Namuncurá, Catriel, Baigorrita, Pincén, Mariano Rosas and other Indian leaders could not keep what was common heritage for themselves. Like the dog in the manger who, according to the popular Spanish saying, "does not eat or let eat", so those fearsome inhabitants of the Argentine plain did not make it produce nor let others do it. This refusal, placed like a wall against the impetuous growth of the productive forces, could not and did not last. The historical necessity that, as Hegel unfortunately says "always advances from its bad side", and that carried in its bosom the agricultural progress of the nation, had condemned it.

For the rest, Roca's defense in relation to the Conquest of the Desert cannot make us forget the other great contributions that he and the "Generation of 80" made to the construction of this Modern Argentina, today so devastated: the nationalization of Buenos Aires and its unique Port, the establishment of secular institutions, secular education, mass immigration and agrarian colonization.

These achievements make him more than worthy of national gratitude and, therefore, the nomination of a street, which is one of the ways in which towns usually remember their benefactors. The fact that this Generation has quickly turned into an Oligarchy and that the speculators and large merchants and landowners have later monopolized the areas recovered for work and production, is a different sub-stage of Argentine development, which cannot overshadow the management of those like Roca and his friends strove to finally give us a unified country.

If the enemies of genocide are looking for a culprit, it is better that they study the biographies of Miter and Sarmiento, who preached and carried out a true social catastrophe against the native Creole lineage. Why nobody refers to this genocide, which really was? Or did not the "civilizer" Sarmiento advise Miter "not to hesitate to shed the blood of gauchos, which is the only thing that is human about them"? I am not proposing that the name of Sarmiento street be changed to Coliqueo, but I do believe that, without removing General Roca from the boulevard that honors his name, the homage desired by the indigenistas could be paid on another street in the city.

In the end, both of them, whether we like it or not, are part of national history, if we want to understand it in its integral unity and not as a fight between good guys and bad guys, who knock each other out of their heads. pedestals like in the tournaments of the Middle Ages, dark ages by the way. This is not a time for denigration, but for integration, not for balkanization, but for Latin American unity. Anything that goes against this perspective can only play the game of the foreign enemy that stalks us and intends to take advantage of our confrontations and our artificial anger.

Roberto Ferrero 

Facebook