America. a forgotten geography

Danilo Anton

Geographical categories used to subdivide, regionalize and interpret the Americas were built based on the political configuration of their states and their territorial boundaries internationally accepted.

These political units are called in several ways: countries, nations, nation-states, etc. We prefer to avoid the term nation or national, since virtually none of them meets the conditions of cultural and identity unit that are considered key elements to define a "nation" We prefer to use the term "territorial states" because we are dealing with "states" that control "territories".

These color maps include large political units such as Brazil, Argentina or the United States, which have areas of several million square kilometers and population of tens of millions of people and other very small, just a few hundred square kilometers and population of less one million (as some Caribbean island states).

In total there are more than 35 states in the American continent whose existence is fundamentally related to the history of colonization by European powers, modified in some way by subsequent geopolitical events. Of total there are 18 territorial-states that emerged from the subdivision of the Spanish colonial empire, and therefore use the Spanish language as an official language, there is a large territorial- state (Brazil) who has inherited undivided Portuguese colonial territories. To these several English language states must be added, two of which (the United States and Canada) have subcontinental dimensions and the rest are much smaller political units (eg Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and other islands small) and a pair of territorial states related to the former French colonization (Haiti), French-speaking Canada and Dutch (Suriname and the Dutch Caribbena islands).

Besides the historical explanation that helps us understand why the various states emerged, it is not easy to find a logic to enable us to find an ecological, geographical, social justification and/or the , validity and essential legitimacy for their existence.

For example, none of these states has its own language different from its neighbors. As mentioned before, in almost all of them, the national language is an extracontinental language which is also shared by several other states of the American continent.

They are just pieces of old empires which crumbled by the vicissitudes of history. From the sociocultural perspective outlined above it is difficult to recognize differences of such magnitude as to recognize a good reason for rational validity of most of the so-called independent countries. There are obvious similarities between Argentina and Uruguay, Peru and Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela, the states of Central America, the English-speaking islands of the Caribbean, etc. There isn't either no large differences in their physical features or ecosystems. The territory of the Amazonian rainforest is shared by eight territorialstates (Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Surinam) and a colony (Guianne Française). The Chaco is shared by Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina. The Andean chain crosses seven states (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina). It follows from the above: American territorial-states have no solid foundation in terms of physical-ecological or cultural basis, and can only be explained as a circumstantial product (yet durable) division and subdivision of the territories of the European empires. In other words, the territorial states replaced the former colonial provinces and represent a continuation of the old administrative divisions, and since independence carry the political, military, social and administrative baggage of their original empires.

Despite the essentially bureaucratic origin these territorial states have been legitimized by the world powers. When this happened they were authorized to sign treaties, to attend international conferences and participate in continental and global forums without their legitimacy beinf discussed.

To "justify" themselves as such, these states have sought to develop a legitimizing "patriotic" culture. It is an elaborate version of the circumstances of their origins in the "patriotic" framework. Sanitized history, heroes and anti-heroes, anthems and flags were created. After 180 years of Windependent” evolution territorial states have obtained an irrefutable legitimacy.

However, despite this apparent consolidation, the deeper reality is very different. The objective of this work is precisely to draw attention to the blatant inaccuracy of an approach that takes into account only those states ignoring the ancient nations of the continent, much more rooted in environments and territories and thus with a legitimacy that does not require artificial symbols nor false patriotisms.

First, America was ancestrally inhabited by very many nations of varying types and sizes since immemorial time. These people occupied territories and possessed their own clearly distinguishable cultures from their neighbors. They had (and still have) their own languages ​​and religions and cultural and productive practices

A conservative estimate put the number of inhabitants of the American continent upon the arrival of Europeans in an amount of approximately 90-100 million people. Some of these nations were very numerous, with populations of several hundred thousand or millions of inhabitants: Quechua, Aymara, Taino, Mapuche, Iroquois and other nations possessed very ancient cultures and had occupied their territories for several centuries, even millennia .

European empires invaded the territories of these native American countries based on their superior military force and "founded" colonies that eventually would become the future "countries"

The European invasion determined rapidly declining population figures. Some nations were completely annihilated (for example the Tainos in Haiti) and others saw their numbers dramatically reduced. However, despite this decline, many of these societies maintain large populations which preserve the central elements of their respective cultures.

This is the case of the large Andean nations of the Quechua and Aymara of several million people each. Other First Nations are relatively numerous: Maya, Purépecha, Mapuche, Nahuatl, Kuna, Guarani, Arawak, Toba, Iroquois, Navajo and others.

These people have their own language, customs and beliefs and have developed production practices adapted to existing ecosystems in their lands. However, in recognizing their national, political, civil and religious rights American First Nations are left aside voluntarily. No single territorial state matches any American First Nation. The Quechua are in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, but lack their own political expression. The Mapuche are in Chile and Argentina, but his language is not taught in schools, having lost most of their ancestral lands for over a century. Tobas are divided by the border Paraguayo- Argentina (Pilcomayo) and have no real possibility of participation in the politics of their respective "countries".

Geographers must begin to recognize that alongside the official political map, there is a real, different and profound cultural map that includes all surviving First Nations within their traditional territories.

This map has not been drawn yet. There are some "ethnographic" blueprints where the approximate location of indigenous peoples is given, or political maps that reduce First Nations to the faint outlines of their reserves, virtually indistinguishable from the limits of large plantations or mining concessions.

In reality, the true map of America is to be done. This map must clearly show all nations of America, without exclusions. It should show the Mapuche country. There are still a million and a half Mapuche, many of whom are reluctant to identify with the states who conquered and oppressed them: Chile and Argentina. The Mapuche nation failed to get their status. Nor has it been included on any map. This map should show the Guarani country. There are still hundreds of thousands of Guarani distributed in several hundred communities. Among them the M'bya Guarani scattered across the length and breadth of their old ancestral territory now occupied by Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay. Also the Ava Chiripá, Pai Tavyterá / Kaiová on the western side of Alto Parana, the Ñandeva and Ava-Guarani in the western Chaco do not have sovereign territory or self-government. They don't even the right to travel in their own country without documents required by the governments that now control their former territories. Nor there is a map that includes the ancient nation of the Toba, related to current mocovíes and extinct (?) Abipones and Charruas. No map shows the Quechua nation. Its former territory: the Tahuantisuyu today is painted with

various colors corresponding to several countries: Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina. Nor appears the Aymara nation, whose representatives have been divided into three countries (Peru, Bolivia and Chile) dividing the communities with artificial boundaries. The same can be said of the Arawaks and Caribs scattered throughout the South American forests or the Southern Chaná (Terena and Guana).

Similarly, there is no map of Central America or Mesoamerica painting the territory of the Kuna in the Isthmus of Panama and neighboring islands, and the Maya area in Guatemala, Mexico and Belize, or the country of the Nahuatl in the valley of Mexico. or the Purepecha nation in the Mexican state of Michoacan. In the map the Navajo nation or the Iroquois Confederacy are absent. The beautiful home of the Haida, the archipelago of Haidaway was named until recently in a grotesque and unfair way with the irrelevant name of Queen Charlotte Islands.

The new color map of the American continent is pending. Of course we are still many other things to correct, recognizing rights, reviewing the history. However, geographers can and must do our fair share in this necessary remaking of the geographical geography of America. Blur boundaries, draw new colors, have a fresh look at the old territories and the nature around them. Perhaps that is the first step in building a new society where all will accept and recognize human diversity.

SYNTHETIC REFERENCES

Anton, Danilo, 1997 Amerrique, Orphans of Paradise, Piriguazú Edciones

Anton, Danilo, 1995 Piríguazú, Rosebud Ed. Montevideo

Anton, Danilo, 1995 Globalization and nation-states in Latin America; Presented at the Seminar on Globalization in Plainfields, Vermont, August 1995

Crosby, Alfred, 1988: Ecological Imperialism: Ed Review, Barcelona.

Weatherford, Jack, 1988: Indian givers "Ballantine Books, New York

Weatherford, Jack, 1993 "Native roots" Ballantine Books, New York

Wright. Ronald, 1993 "Stolen continents", Penguin, 1993, Toronto

Blog in Spanish:            daniloanton.blogspot.com