SOUTH AMERICA'S INDIANS [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
Sut,—The information given in Miss Sybil Vincent's article under the above heading in your issue of November 12th, is so incorrect that your readers in South America must be astonished that it found a place in your usually well-informed paper.
In answer I propose to deal principally with Chile, where I have resided for 49 years, and have been employed in every part of the country.
Here there is not even the shadow of an Indian problem, and it is no exaggeration to say that there are thousands of Chilians and resident foreigners who have never seen an Indian. The few remaining Araucanian Indians are settled on reservations around Temuco, in the Southern part of Chile; they are too lazy to figure as workmen even in their own district, and have absolutely no political importance.
To say that the Chilian Popular Front has anything to do with organising the Indians is simply grotesque ; this Party is formed by Socialists, Communists and some Radicals, and to a large extent represents Labour, but the Chilian labourer is very far from being an Indian. and is, in fact, a labourer of whom any country might be proud.
No doubt a certain amount of bribery goes on in all South American countries, as probably in most others, but for your contributor to write that the Popular Front was kept from power solely by bribery is quite incorrect, and also offensive to what has always been considered as a friendly and well- governed country.
If it is admitted that Argentine, Brazil, Chile and probably Peru have no Indian problem to face, the important part of South America is accounted for, and to talk of the West Coast of South America as the next storm centre of the world is simply laughable, and could only be the opinion of someone whose knowledge of the subject was derived from a tourist trip down the West Coast, after listening to the stories reserved for such visitors.
Viiia del Mar, Chile.
BERTRAM NORTON.
Previous page
