An ignored geography

 Danilo Antón

The geographical categories used to subdivide, regionalize and interpret the American continent were built on criteria based on the political configuration of their territorial states and their limits accepted both internationally and supranationally.

Using these categories, the so-called political maps are obtained, which include the different recognized states, represented by different colors that give the feeling that there really exist great differences beyond or more than the borders thus defined cartographically. These political units are denominated in various ways: countries, nations, nation-states, etc., although we prefer to avoid the term nation or national, given that virtually none of them meet the conditions of cultural unity and identity that is considered a fundamental element for define a "nation" We prefer to use the term "territorial-states", because that is what it is, "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 populations of tens of millions of inhabitants and other very small, just a few hundred square kilometers and populations of less than of one million (like 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 their colonization by the European powers, modified by subsequent geopolitical events. Of the total of states of the continent there are 18 that emerged from the subdivision of the Spanish colonial empire, and therefore use the Spanish language as an official language, there is a large state of Portuguese language (Brazil) that has inherited the undivided Portuguese colonial territories. To these must be added several English-speaking states, 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 more small) and a couple of territorial states related to the old French (Haiti) and Dutch (Surinam) colonization.

In addition to the historical explanation that allows us to understand why different states emerged, it is not easy to find a logic that enables us to justify their existence, validity and essential legitimacy ecologically, socially, culturally and / or geographically. For example, none of these states have a language of their own that differentiates them from their neighbors. As we 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. Just a patch of old empires shredded by the ups and downs of history. From the socio-cultural point of view mentioned above, it is difficult to recognize differences of such magnitude as to justify the existence or rational validity of most of the so-called independent countries. The similarities between Argentina and Uruguay, Peru and Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela, the Central American states, the English-speaking islands of the Caribbean, etc. are obvious. There are also no great differences in physical or ecosystemic spaces. The territory of the Amazon rainforest is shared by 8 territorial states (Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname) and a colony (Guianne Française). The Chaco is shared by Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina. The Andean chain runs through seven states (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina). From all this it follows the above: the American states have no solid foundations from the physical-ecological or cultural point of view, and can only be explained as a circumstantial (but lasting) product of the divisions and subdivisions of the territories of the European empires. In other words, the states replaced the former colonial provinces represented a continuation of the old administrative divisions, and from their independence they brought with them the political, military, social and administrative baggage of their original empires.

Despite this eminently administrative and bureaucratic origin, these states have been legitimized by the world powers since they achieved their respective independence. They were authorized to sign treaties, to attend international conferences and to participate in continental and world forums without their legitimacy being discussed.

To "justify" as such, these states have sought to develop a legitimating "patriotic" culture. This is an elaborate version of the circumstances of its origins in a "patriotic" framework. History was sanitized, heroes and anti-heroes, hymns, shields and b

Actually, the true map of America is about to be made. This map must clearly show all the nations of America, without exclusions. It must show the Mapuche country. There are still one and a half million Mapuche, many of whom are reluctant to identify with the states that conquered and oppressed them: Chile and Argentina. The Mapuche nation has not been able to obtain its status. Nor has it been included in any map. It must show the Guaraní country. There are still several hundred thousand Guarani distributed in several hundred communities: the Mbya scattered throughout the length and breadth of their ancient ancestral territory that is now called Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, the ava chiripá and the pai tavyterá / kaiova in the western band of Alto Paraná, the ñandeva and ava-guaraní in the western Chaco. They have no territory, no self-government, not even the right to travel on their own land without the documents required by the states that now occupy their former territories. Nor is there a map that includes the ancient Toba nation, related to the current Mocovíes and the disappeared (?) Abipones and Charrúas. No map shows us where the nation of Quechua is. Its ancient territory: the Tahuantisuyu, today is painted in various colors corresponding to several countries that are called: Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina. Nor does the Aymara nation appear, whose representatives have been divided into three countries (Peru, Bolivia and Chile) along artificial borders. The same can be said of the Arawaks and Caribs scattered throughout the jungles from the chaná of ​​the south (terena and guaná) to the guajiros of northern South America.

Similarly, there is no map of Central America or Meso-America that colors the territory of the Kuna on the isthmus of Panama and neighboring islands, nor the Mayan territory in Guatemala, Mexico and Belize, nor the country of the Nahuatl. in the Valley of Mexico or the home of the Purépecha nation, in the Mexican state of Michoacán. Nor does the numerous nation of the Navajos, the Iroquois confederation or the beautiful homeland of the Haida, the Haidaway archipelago, figure unfairly and grotesquely on the maps with the irrelevant name of "Queque Charlotte Islands" on any political map.

The new color map of the American continent is pending. Of course many other things are pending: wrongs to be straightened out, rights to recognize, stories to review. However, geographers can and must fulfill our share in this necessary rectification of the geographical culture of America. To blur borders, paint new colors, look with different eyes at the old territories and the nature that surrounds us. Maybe that is the first step to build the new society where all diversities are accepted and recognized.

SYNTHETIC BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antón, Danilo, 1997, Amerrique, the Orphans of Paradise, Piriguazú Edciones

Antón, Danilo, 1995, Piríguazú, Rosebud Ed. Montevideo

Antón, 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. Crítica, 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