On April 16th, the so-called «Conquest of the Desert» (1878-1885) reached its 146th anniversary. In this context, it is pertinent to rethink, disseminate and contribute to fostering a critical perspective regarding some aspects that have characterized this event which, to this day, continues to be defended only by part of its history.
What do we refer to when we talk about the «Conquest of the Desert»?
We could say that it was a policy carried out in the 19th century by the Argentine National State, which, during its consolidation process, employed various strategies with the aim of expanding territorially into what are now the territories that make up present-day Patagonia Argentina.
Why did they do it? That territory was not always part of the National State, but rather it was a living space inhabited by diverse indigenous societies with their customs, ways of life and, above all, distinct ways of understanding, seeing and relating to a space that was «(...) internally articulated and at the same time closely linked to the markets of the state society» (Jong et al., 2022, p. 22). However, that space maintained tensions with said state society. Moments of alliance, conflicts, and negotiations transformed social, economic, and political dynamics both for the state society as well as for the Pampa-Patagonia societies.
Here we do not seek to explore each one of them but rather to inform the reader that if it is possible to talk about, study, and analyze various social, economic, and political dynamics that characterized the territories of Pampa-Patagonia before the 19th century. It becomes paradoxical to label such a space as a «desert». This takes on greater relevance when we recall that «(...) since the 14th century, both societies coexisted separated by a border or permeable contact zone with periods of negotiated peace and periods of mutual great and small massacres» (Ferguson and Alimonda, 2004, p. 2). So, what accounts for this characterization? The answer to this question is not simple, and in order not to simplify the issue, we could start by saying that the «desert», at least the one we are concerned with in this work, is not perennial. The «desert» was constructed, and it is on this notion that the National State carried out what it later dubbed its "spectacular feat".
Building «Deserts»
The construction of the concept of «desert» gained strength around 1870 and originated in the context of the rise of positivism and evolutionism that characterized the field of ideas towards the end of the 19th century. Added to economic and political aspirations, «(...) the idea of occupying lands beyond the frontier was also based on the conviction that indigenous peoples constituted hordes of savages (...) incapable of being civilized(…)» (Mases, 2002, p. 40). The desert thus transformed into the space where the "barbarian" was engendered.
Since before 1845 that space had already been catalogued as a «desert» by enlightened elites. However, it is from 1870 onwards where it presented itself as the main problem. To the eyes of the «civilized», the occupation of that space would lead to the disappearance of the indigenous people, «the desert appears as the principal enemy of development and of the march towards general progress in the country and therefore, it is necessary to occupy it which becomes an urgent priority(…)» (Mases, 2002, p. 40).
That issue, combined with the increase in tensions, led to a shift towards an offensive policy against the indigenous people, as stated by Roca himself when addressing Congress in 1878: «It is necessary to abandon it once and for all and go directly to find the Indian in his hideout, to subdue or expel him(…)» (Mases, 2002, p.44).
After Roca's plan was accepted by President Nicolás Avellaneda and converted into law by Congress in August of 1878, a series of «(...) countless expeditions formed by light parties(…) reached the very center of the aboriginal territory delivering small but continuous blows(…)» (Mases 2002, p. 47). These attacks, in a context where indigenous power had declined due to various factors, were essential for the defeat of the indigenous societies. Julio Argentino Roca consolidated the conquest one year later. He did so with «(...)a triumphant march(…) at the head of the expeditionary army, he raised the national flag on the banks of the Negro River on May 25th, 1879(…)» (Mases, 2002, p. 47). This act led by Roca in a territory taken by force not only involved soldiers but also naturalists and photographers.
Both figures represent «progress» accompanying the campaign, and through an analysis of the photos taken during it, one observes that they were essential for constructing «(...)a memory of a military victory over the indigenous - in reality, their extermination - but also a memory of a certain version of history and the construction of the National State and its institutions (…)» (Ferguson and Alimonda, 2004, p. 2).
The images construct the «desert» more than any discourse as well as foster the false idea that the conquest was a peaceful act. This is due to the photographic record omitting indigenous people. The photos, like the State, decide what to show and what must be hidden. While constructing a «desert», absences are also created, which is not new, being one of the acts of amnesia, «(...)one of its main achievements (…) is the substitution of historical reality, producing an entrenched social phantom(…)» (Valko, 2013, p. 38). The photographs are deliberate, «(...)what ends up being highlighted in all photos is a precise aspect of space perception: the void. Eliminated both physically and visually their previous inhabitants, Patagonia now opens as a challenge (...)
That «desert» appears as «empty» through a series of photographs that, by glorifying the “civilized”, eliminate indigenous people from the photographic record. This is supported when we recall that «out of fifty photographs, Indians appear only in four (8%), but if we refer to aboriginal prisoners during this campaign, that number reduces to one photo(…)» (Ferguson and Alimonda, 2004, p. 15). Something we must not forget is that alongside the elimination of indigenous people from the photographic record, all traces of the violence exercised are also eliminated, thus creating a vision of «clean war».
Conclusion
To summarize, if we analyze in depth what is presented today as «a spectacular feat», as an anniversary, we end up finding a high level of depth and complexity that invites us to question these ideas. It makes us rethink that «desert», it makes us doubt about «those barbarians» and, by doing so, allows us to question not only what happened with those indigenous societies that inhabited the Pampa-Patagonia territories before, during, and after the conquest but also their descendants today. This work aims to be an approach to these questions which, for our luck, have and continue to have answers.
Bibliography
Ferguson J. and Alimonda H. (2004). Images, “desert” and national memory - the photographs of the Argentine army campaign against the Indians - 1879. Chilean Journal of Visual Anthropology, 4, 1-28.
Jong I., Cordero G., Alemano (2022). Thinking the interior land. Indigenous territoriality in the pampas and patagonia (1750-1850). Andean Dialogue, 68, 21-34.
Mases E.H. (2002). State and indigenous question. The final destiny of the subdued Indians in the south territory (1878-1910). Prometeo Libros/Entrepasados.
Valko M. (2013). Pedagogy of amnesia. Chronicles and strategies of an invisible genocide. Peña Lillo, Ediciones Continente.
Comments