Talk:Chilean expansionism

About the map

Hello @Psiĥedelisto: & @MarshalN20:, I would like to know the progress of the map that is mentioned here. I offer to finish it if its still unfinished or create a new one.-- Janitoalevic (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be great to finally have a map of the territorial acquisitions. I think it would be a useful addition in the "Consequences" section, to visualize the territorial significance of the expansion.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Janitoalevic: I can send you the source files for it if you wish, but I found QGIS to be too unstable and my computer to be too slow for me to finish it. I haven't deleted it, though, humorously it's located in C:\Users\<me>\Documents\Chile map that I never finished and probably never will. It's so close to be done, but I don't know if the QGIS project files will be of a help to you. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Yes, that'd help, I'll see what can I do with the QGIS files, and please send a svg version too.-- Janitoalevic (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

First steps

Hello. The first steps are lacking in this article. It were take of Valdivia (1820), Osorno (1822) and the conquest of Chiloe (1826). My English is not good enough for writing it. There are articles in Spanish in es:Toma de Valdivia and es:Conquista de Chiloé. A relevant book is Spanish is Chiloé. 1826. Regards. Lin linao (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Lin linao. The article lacks most of all of inline citations. Dentren | ^Talk 12:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Bias

I think the article is biased against Chile (the Chilean state). It presents Chilean expansionism as a policy, while not presenting any source that shows a long term expansionist approach. While there were intelectualls who argued for expansionism other some conflicts that ended in territorial expansions were not obviously thought so from the beginning (War of the Pacific). The Occupation of Araucanía is a dubious case as from a Chilean government point of view it was not acquiring new territory. Chile was mostly occupying was it thought was legally Chilean by the uti possidetis iuris principle.To state or imply the Chilean state was bent on expansionism is missleading. Dentren | ^Talk 12:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dentren: I included Marcus Kurtz's footnote to avoid this type of claim. Why would he ([1]) be biased against the Chilean state? Jacques Sylberberg and Miguel Monterichard, in chapter in the book Why Nations Realign (2015), write that "the success of the expansionist policy changed Chile's role in international affairs; the 'robber baron', which had become 'the policeman' of the Southern Pacific region". They cite Daniel Martner's Historia de Chile (1929) for information on Chile's expansionist policy. Here is information on Daniel Martner ([2]). Furthemore, according to Edward Melillo in Strangers on Familiar Soil (2015), "Critics derided Chile as 'the Prussia of the Pacific,' a ruthlessly expansionist power, hell-bent on regional dominance." Then there's also Burr and Rauch, which again explicitly indicate in their analysis the existence of Chilean expansionist ambitions. It's unclear to me where and or what exactly is the alleged bias in the article? Per WP:WEIGHT, the article is appropriately presenting information based on academic sources. There's even a "Criticism" section to allow for other opinions on the subject.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also somewhat surprised that you view the Occupation of Araucanía as a "dubious case" of expansionism because of the Chilean government's point of view. It's like stating that Manifest Destiny and the forced displacement of Native Americans into reservations (including the Trail of Tears) are "dubious" examples of American expansionism because the U.S. government's point of view is that they were imposing order on the region.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Its good to have a source like Marcus Kurtz, so certainly its a valid viewpoint. If it amount to indisputable fact that Chile was "expansionistic" is more dubious. Regarding the case of Araucanía, this was seen an integral part of Chile by some. Hence the name Pacification of Araucanía applied by authorities. Would you say Peru was expansionistic because it established in the course of the 19th and ealy 20th century its rule in remote parts of the Amazon basin?

If you see in the Spanish Wikipedia the equivalent of this page is name "Evolución territorial de Chile"...

It would be far-fetched to claim that the was an unanimous drive towards expansion in the Chilean state, rather some individuals pushed for expansions and others did not. The in cases of Araucanía and Patagonia the label expansionism is dubious. But clearly in some situations expansionism prevailed, such as Easter Island and southern Peru. Dentren | ^Talk 16:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there's certainly much to be said about the colonization of the Amazon Basin and the ambitions of the multiple countries surrounding the area, including Peru.

Here in the English Wikipedia there are several articles about the expansion of the United States, including Territorial evolution of the United States, Manifest Destiny, and American imperialism. But these are not replacements for each other. If you would like to create a Territorial evolution of Chile article, then that would certainly not be a problem.

In the Spanish Wikipedia, this article is connected to the article named Expansión territorial de Chile (Territorial Expansion of Chile), which is different from "territorial evolution" (which can be both land additions and subtractions).

I think that Kurtz defines the policy of expansionism in Chile as an "elite consensus" (so, naturally, that does not include the majority of the Chilean people). With regards to Patagonia, there's also an article here called Conquest of the Desert, which concerns Argentine expansionism in Patagonia.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 01:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It is dubious that Kurtz "elite consensus" is more than an abstraction, that does mean it false, but that things can be seen through other viewpoints. The Brtitish Empire experienced enourmous expansion in the 19th century, yet there were disenting voices in the elite. The same goes for Russia where the fake document "The Will of Peter the Great" promotes the idea Russia being ideologically bent on World domination. While I have now made you aware of my concerns, I will return when I have sources that complement Kurtz's narrative. Dentren | ^Talk 09:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I remember reading about some Chilean congressmen being opposed to the War of the Pacific. Moreover, there was also opposition to the War of the Confederation. I agree with you that such dissenting voices must be mentioned. But does it amount to truly challenging the existence of a policy of expansionism? It's like considering outliers in an economic study. They are certainly important to consider, particularly as a contrast to the dominant result, but do not necessarily change the predominant conclusions of the analysis.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There were congressmen who opposed conquest of Araucania because Chilean governmen had signed treaties that confirmed Spanish empire agreements with Mapuche people. Those politician claimed that an invasion would be unfair and against law. And there were congressmen that agreed that Mapuche territories were not part of Chilean territory but invasion was a duty in order "to civilize Indians", "to bring those lands to production", "to secure borders from foreign agressions" and "to connect the two parts of Chilean territory".

There is a big white book that contains such discussions at the Parliament, but I don't remember its name. Probably something like "La cuestión de la Araucanía en los debates parlamentarios chilenos". Regards. Lin linao (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Content from other article

Janitoalevic (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)