Anti-Peruvian sentiment

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. In particular, in an article about "sentiment", normal readers wouldn't expect in-depth coverage of 19th century politics. Please help clarify the article. There might be a discussion about this on the talk page. (May 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (January 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) It has been suggested that this article be split out into multiple articles. (Discuss) (January 2024) This article may contain excessive or irrelevant examples. Please help improve it by removing less pertinent examples and elaborating on existing ones. (May 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article contains too many or overly lengthy quotations. Please help summarise the quotations. Consider transferring direct quotations to Wikiquote or excerpts to Wikisource. (May 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Anti-Peruvian sentiment" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Anti-Peruvian sentiment (Spanish: Antiperuanismo) refers to negative feelings, fear, hatred and discrimination toward and/or against Peruvians based on a combination of historical, cultural, and ethnic prejudices.

It arose since the 19th century in some societies as a consequence of their territorial expansion and that germinated as a tendency in the nationalisms of neighboring countries, mainly Ecuador, Chile and to a lesser extent due to the disputed origin of different cultural manifestations, such as recipes and gastronomic preparations (such as pisco or picarones) or folkloric dances (such as the diablada or the morenada) whose origin is disputed or shared with Chile and Bolivia. In addition, due to different political and ideological differences with the Bolivarian leaders and their Chavista sympathizers in Venezuela.

It can manifest itself in many ways, such as individual hatred or discrimination, tabloid media, attacks by groups organized for that purpose, even on social networks.

In the midst of the Argentine War of Independence and the Auxiliary Expeditions to Upper Peru, there was a climate of tension between Peru, loyal to the Spanish Crown, and the Junta de Buenos Aires seeking the independence of the Río de la Plata and spreading the May Revolution to all of South America, which generated warlike confrontations between Peruvian supporters of the counterrevolution and Argentine supporters of the revolution; In the midst of these events, there were some signs of anti-Peruvianism in the most conflictive stages of those events, since these troops devastated the region and caused local rejection of any union with the "porteños",^[1] to the extent that there were Peruvians who did not want direct borders with the so-called "aggressive" Buenos Aires (due to their invasions of Charcas).^[1] Samples of this anti-Peruvian aggressiveness occurred when the Argentine government ordered the execution of the leaders of the Córdoba Counterrevolution, which were having support of the Viceroyalty of Peru, also served to teach a "lesson to the leaders of Peru", since at first it was intended to gather the prisoners so that they could be sent, without making detours, either to Buenos Aires or to the city of Córdoba "according to the most convenient", however the order to execute the counterrevolutionary leaders at the moment of their capture, a decision promoted by Mariano Moreno and which had been taken by the full Primera Junta, except for Manuel Alberti (who excused himself due to his ecclesiastical character), served as a warning of hostility of the junta towards the peoples opposed to the revolution, with emphasis on Cordoba and Peruvians.^[2]

"Reserved. The sacred rights of the King and the Homeland have armed the arm of justice and this Junta has struck down a sentence against the conspirators of Córdoba accused for the notoriety of their crimes and convicted by the general vote of all the good ones. The Board orders that they be harquebused Dn. Santiago Liniers, Don Juan Gutiérrez de la Concha, the Bishop of Córdoba, Dn. Victorino Rodríguez, Colonel Allende and the Royal Official Dn. Joaquin Moreno. At the moment that each or every one of them is caught, whatever the circumstances, this resolution will be executed, without giving rise to minutes that provide requests and relationships capable of compromising compliance with this order and the honor of Your Excellency. This punishment must be the basis of the stability of the new system and a lesson for the chiefs of Peru, who advance to a thousand excesses for the hope of impunity and is at the same time the proof of the usefulness and energy with which this Expedition fills the important objects what is it intended for."^[3]

There were also signs of Peruvian-phobia on the part of the Argentines of the Junta when Manuel Belgrano exposed on July 6, 1816, in front of the deputies of the Congress of Tucumán in two meetings, a proposal to establish an almost nominal monarchy, discussing first about choosing a European prince and then a Peruvian sovereign from the descendants of the Incas to offer the throne, it was most likely projected that the title would correspond to Juan Bautista Túpac Amaru, the only known surviving brother of the Inca noble, Túpac Amaru II, although they also considered Dionisio Inca Yupanqui, a mestizo jurist and soldier who had been educated in Europe and who was the representative of Peru at the Cortes of Cádiz, or Juan Andrés Jiménez de León Manco Cápac, a mestizo cleric and soldier who earned his fame for opposing the excessive collection of tribute and that he participated as a military commander in the uprising of Juan José Castelli.^[4][5] Only four days after making this proclamation, the great announcement of the Independence of Argentina took place, with a large majority of the assembly members opting for the suggested monarchical form that, in addition, should have its headquarters in the city of Cuzco, the capital of the projected New Kingdom. Only Godoy Cruz and part of his collaborators demanded that said capital be in Buenos Aires. According to this "Plan del Inca",^[6] it would be an effective and constitutional parliamentary-style government, similar to the British one, to achieve prompt international recognition of Argentine independence. His proposal to establish a parliamentary Inca monarchy was ridiculed by his contemporaries who supported the formation of a republic, the original project was rejected mainly for reasons of anti-Peruvian racism. The Buenos Aires delegates expressed their total rejection of the delusional idea, almost without being heard. It is said that one of them came to shout there: "I'd rather be dead than serve a king with flip flops!"; and that the journalists from Buenos Aires mocked the decision, assuring that now he would have to go look for "a dirty-legged king in some grocery store or tavern in the Altiplano".^[7] The Congress of Tucumán finally decided to reject the Inca's plan because anti-Peruvian fellings, creating in its place a republican and centralist state with its capital in Buenos Aires.^[8]

Another example of anti-Peruvianism, as well as anti-Chileanism and Hispanophobia, was Brown's privateering expedition to the Pacific, sponsored by the government of Buenos Aires, where ships were sent on a privateering expedition to the Pacific coast against civilians, without engaging them in a regular naval warfare against the military, whose main targets were the ports of Chile and Peru, to weaken Spanish trade, as well as Peruvian. Although the preparations were carried out in secret, some royalists from Buenos Aires tried to pass communications to Chile to prepare defense actions, but the governor of Cuyo, José de San Martín, managed to intercept those attempts.^[9] One of the main objectives of the corsairs Argentinians was the Port of Callao, which was attacked in January 1816.

"On January 22, the perverse Brown woke up anchored near the mouth of the Rimac River with the greatest insolence imaginable, as if he knew that there was no gunboat or armed ship in the port. His forces were composed of four ships and a pailebot. Three of them went ahead until they anchored in the same bay, fired a few cannon shots as if to mock them, they were answered by the castles, they raised anchor again and kept looking around until midnight, when they returned to shoot at the port, and They managed to do the damage by sinking one of the ships that remained at anchor, the frigate Fuente-Hermosa."

Such was the hostility of the Argentine corsairs towards the Peruvian population, that it has been recorded that several travelers from Peru to Europe (especially friars of the Catholic Church), at the moment of undertaking the return from the Brazilian coast to Peru, arrived in to prefer the land route, from Goiás and Mato Grosso, to reach Peru via the Amazon, "rather than run the risk of falling into the hands of corsairs from La Plata at sea."^[10]

On the other hand, some historians, with indigenist, Hispanist or revisionist orientations of the nationalist current, have wanted to affirm that the Argentine Liberator himself, Don José de San Martin, could have been an anti-Peruvian figure, questioning whether a foreigner would arrive (San Martín) to proclaim independence. An independence, considered imposed (favoring the historiographical thesis of independence granted, and not achieved or conceived) and very probably against the will of the Peruvians (from which previous declarations of independence would have already emerged, such as the Cuzco Rebellion, later repressed by the Peruvians themselves loyal to the Viceroyalty, and without the need for the intervention of an invading army), based on some phrases such as:^[11]

"I believe that all the power of the supreme being is not enough to liberate that despicable country (Peru): only Bolívar, supported by force, can do it."

It is also known that San Martín wanted the disputed territory of Upper Peru, administered since 1810 by the Viceroyalty of Peru, to be handed over to the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, which, although it would be somewhat predictable on his part (because it was an Argentine) in the exercise of a realpolitik,^[12] on the other hand it would be a sign of anti-Peruvianism on his part in the face of vague promises that he made to warlords, like Andrés de Santa Cruz, over the territory. Given this, he was allegedly accused of being dishonest with his ambiguous promises that he gave to Peruvian politicians who supported his government, since the Protectorate of San Martín de facto controlled the Atacama Party and was also claiming part of the territories of the current La Paz and Pando.^[13] That ended up generating a climate of mistrust, where the praises and praise of the Peruvians to the Liberator would have been apparent, in the midst of hostilities towards the Argentine caudillo. In the secret session of the Peruvian Congress, on September 27, 1822, suspicion and fear were expressed that San Martín tried to seize the provinces of Upper Peru, Arequipa and Cuzco.^[14]

In addition, San Martín came to be accused of falling into a serious anti-Peruvian hypocrisy with the monarchical project of the Protectorate of San Martín, by preferring the coming of European princes (betraying several nationalist Peruvians), leaving aside the already existing and millennial institutions national monarchists in Peru to imitate the parliamentary constitutionalism of the English and French in the restoration (being accused of being Anglophile and Frenchified by Peruvian Hispanicism), as well as having little or no consideration for monarchical proposals that represented the interests of the indigenous nobility (being accused of Criollo elitist by the Peruvian indigenism). For example, the case of the indigenous nobility of the Cajamarca region, which, after obtaining knowledge of the sworn independence on January 8, 1821, by Torre Tagle (despite the exclusion of indigenous representatives from the Cabildo de Naturales and famous curacas in rural populations, such as Manuel Anselmo Carhuaguatay), he tried to introduce himself and propose that the form of government of the new Peruvian state should correspond to a descendant of Atahualpa who lived in the town, the most notorious being Don Manuel Soto Astopilco (main cacique of the Seven Huarangas of the province),^[15] in addition to suggesting the rebirth of the State of Tahuantinsuyo and its right to the crown. No news was recorded that he tried to invoke possible links with the distant and exhausted Incas of Cusco (mostly more favorable to the Royal Army of Peru). And although the proposal was heard and notified to Torre Tagle, no one in the government of San Martín responded to this request. Which shows that for the Creole oligarchy in the Trujillo Intendancy there was a lack of interest towards the indigenous political Society, for which the successors of the Incas were not considered for any alternative government. Leaving a tacit glimpse that the liberal movement of San Martin could end in a monarchical government, or perhaps a republican one, but in either case, it would be led by the Criollo elite and not by indigenous people, no matter how stately and regal lineage they could make ostentation.^[16]

San Martín's intentions had been frustrated not only by the irruption of Simón Bolívar in the destiny of Independence, but also by the strong opposition that he encountered among some of the Peruvians themselves, and by the discredit that the errors and nonsense of Bernardo de Monteagudo (an obscure character who, in addition to being one of the main people responsible for the murders of Manuel Rodríguez and the Carrera brothers, was a convinced monarchist), perpetuated as one of the most disastrous characters for the history of the emancipation of America for his radical Jacobin tendencies. Between December 1821 and February 1822, Monteagudo issued a series of resolutions aimed at banishing, confiscating part of their assets and prohibiting the exercise of commerce to peninsular Spaniards who had not been baptized.^[17] Although there are no investigations about how many supporters of the king left Peru because of the serious episodes of its independence, as well as the political change itself that they did not want to recognize; some estimates point to between ten and twelve thousand. Ricardo Palma, in his historical study on Monteagudo, estimates the number of Spaniards expelled from Peru by his decision at 4,000 (despite the fact that many of these families were already integrated into the Peruvian nation during the miscegenation process, among them would be the expulsion of the Archbishop of Lima).^[18] According to Canadian historian Timothy E. Anna, these actions were "an unparalleled act of violence and unprecedented human rights abuse." It is very certain that this popular unrest was one of the causes for the riots that surrounded the dismissal of Monteagudo on July 25, 1822, since it was perceived, in the feelings of the Lima population of all social classes, as a very unfair act because it is an abuse against Spaniards who had lived in Peru for decades and who had an important social and economic role.^[19] According to Scarlett O'Phelan, Monteagudo's measures were about to generate the annihilation of the social group of merchants who were active in very important areas for the Peruvian economy (these being agriculture and, above all, mining). This was due to the fact that the large, small, and medium-sized owners (all expropriated without much difference) were responsible for managing the most vital aspects of the viceroyalty's economy. It is also known that battalions of Argentine origin generated complaints from the civilian population due to the "havoc and exhortations" they carried out on the farms, devastating the crops and even attacking (sometimes seriously injuring) a large part of the members of the Peasant, who worked the land.^[20]

All these measures, according to the revisionist perspective, would have been allowed by San Martín, knowing that the loss of a large Peruvian capital would benefit the interests of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata so that it could project as the industrial leader of the South American continent, to the detriment of the Peruvians, since such a compulsive movement against the Hispanic social groups (who were leaders who organized, maintained and dynamized the productive bases that made the bases of the national economy work) did not take place in Chile and Argentina; thus evidencing that primarily the rivalries present in the regional groups of economic power in Latin America, for which both Chileans and Argentines (whose states financed the liberating expedition with the contributions of their bourgeoisies) had feelings and interests contrary to their regional equivalents in Peru (including the Inca nobility for their royalist tendencies), rather than emanating an idealized Spanish-American fraternity against imperialism.

"In the period 1821–1822, the liberator José de San Martín and Bernardo Monteagudo, his trusted minister, expropriated and squandered the mercantile and economic elite of Lima, without achieving the definitive independence of Peru. Monteagudo had little regard for the level of civilization and the democratic possibilities of Peruvians. His main objective was to eradicate the Spanish threat in independent La Plata and Chile at any cost, including the economic ruin of Peru. He confiscated wealth and other resources to organize local spy networks and covert operations, clearly damaging to gaining the confidence of the local population and their support for the cause of independence.

(…) The kidnapping policy inaugurated by Monteagudo further undermined a weak tradition of the right to property and laid the foundations for politically motivated expropriations. The agricultural and urban properties confiscated from royalist Spaniards and Creoles, mainly in the central coast region, were valued at approximately two million pesos. This policy caused greater economic problems and a drop in investment.

(...) Eventually, most of the expropriated assets were awarded to military officers who sought compensation and rewards for their patriotic exploits. Among the high-ranking officers who received these rewards we have Antonio José de Sucre, Bernardo O'Higgins, and José Rufino Echenique. Juan Francisco Ryes, Blas Sardeña and José María Plaza, among others. In the provinces, local officials repeated the abuses of power and the plundering committed in the name of the patriot cause.

(...) To make matters worse, Admiral Thomas Cochrane (British), whose naval services and expenses had remained unpaid, appropriated the reserves of silver bars that had been painfully and arrogantly accumulated during the government of San Martín. Cochrane was the commander of the Chilean "liberation" fleet and also benefited from the capture and hijacking of Peruvian merchant ships. A French diplomat informed his bosses in Paris that the lack of popular support for freedom and independence was explained by the corruption of the new separatist authorities and their infighting. Another diplomatic envoy attributed the weakness of these nascent governments to the distribution of official positions through protection and intrigue instead of recognition of merit. These weak organizational bases provided fertile conditions for corruption and abuse of power."

Later, during the founding of the State of Upper Peru, there were anti-Peruvian sectors in Argentina that saw the independence of Bolivia (and the renunciation of its claims by the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata to the sovereignty of that territory) as something tolerable with to avoid the aggrandizement of Peru (coinciding with Bolívar, Sucre and Santander to avoid restoring the power that Peru had during the viceregal era), which had been a great problem for the commercial and military interests of Buenos Aires during the wars that there was between the Junta and the Peruvian Viceroyalty. Also because it was expected to obtain the support of Sucre and the Bolivian state, together with the support of Gran Colombia, for the War in Brazil, even if that was at the expense of Peruvian interests.^{[21][22][23][24][25][26]}

During the War against the Peru-Bolivian Confederation, relations between the Peru-Bolivian Confederation and the Argentine Confederation had deteriorated, among other reasons due to Bolivian President Andrés de Santa Cruz's support for unitary groups that had carried out at least four incursions since the southern Bolivia to the northern Argentine provinces in the years before the war. This led to anti-Peruvian measures on the part of the Argentine Government, such as that of February 13, 1837, where Rosas declared closed all commercial, epistolary and any kind of communication between the inhabitants of the Argentine Confederation and those of Peru and Bolivia, declaring " traitor to the country" to anyone who crossed the border into those countries. Both confederations did not have formal diplomatic relations, so the declaration was intended to externalize the break in relations between the two countries. Although Juan Manuel de Rosas was not anti-Peruvian, since he would declare war on Santa Cruz and his supporters, but not on the Peruvian states, it can be considered an episode of anti-Peruvianism in the history of Argentina, since the concern that the federal caudillo would have, in front of the power that Peru would be obtaining, in the Manifiesto de las razones que legitiman la Declaración de Guerra contra el gobierno del General Santa Cruz, Titulado Protector de la Confederación Perú-Boliviana [Manifesto of the reasons that legitimize the Declaration of War against the government of General Santa Cruz, Entitled Protector of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation].

"If the prepotency of Peru, if its population and resources were worth, as Santa Cruz has claimed, to justify its policy, the government in charge of Foreign Relations of the Argentine Confederation would seize them to justify the war against the Peruvian Confederation. -Bolivian (...) if there was no balance between Peru and Bolivia, will it exist between the United States and the Argentine Confederation? (...) that fusion under the aegis of a conqueror is dangerous and the propensity of Peru to aggrandize it does not promise Bolivia neither security nor rest."

During the War of the Triple Alliance, Peru was a country that protested against the alleged attempts to conquer Paraguay by the member countries of the Triple Alliance (of which Argentina was a part together with Uruguay and Brazil). For the rest of the continent, this war was perceived as an attempt to conquer and divide Paraguay among the allies. The attempt against the independence of one of the countries of the continent was feared as a terrible precedent for potential geopolitical disorders and possible expansionist projects in the governments of the area, Argentina being very frowned upon in the eyes of Peru. The controversial Secret Treaty of the Triple Alliance was seen in Peruvian diplomacy as a violation of Paraguay's sovereignty and integrity as a country. Thus, the perception of that war was understood, in the public eye, as the arrogance of 3 allied countries that wanted to seize Paraguay's territory and even destroy its sovereignty, generating analogies with the Second French intervention in Mexico or the Spanish-South American War, that happened simultaneously during the 1860s, comparing them as a form of imperialism not different from that of the Europeans. Seen in this way, no distinction was made regarding a conquest, especially of a Latin American country, by an American government or a European government, in the eyes of society, both acts were reprehensible. Peruvian diplomacy based its principles on continental solidarity (product of Pan-Americanism) and the defense of national sovereignty and integrity, especially the Amazonian ambitions of Brazilian interests and their expansionist advances, which were now related to the Argentines. Evidence of the public condemnation of Peru towards this policy of conquest, by the Brazilians and Argentines against Paraguay, was shown in an edition of the newspaper El Comercio, dated 10/8/1866, which responded to accusations of the anti-Peruvian Argentine press that there was a lack of impartiality in the country due to Peru's sympathy with Paraguay.^[27] Given this Peruvian support to Paraguayans, Argentina reacted with anti-Peruvian positions, refusing to be a country a member of the Quadruple Alliance against Spain in the War of the Chincha Islands; In addition, the diplomacy practiced by the Triple Alliance sought to separate the Pacific governments (Chile, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador) and thus dissolve the Quadruple Alliance. Regarding possible profitable differences, Bolivia was definitely the most vulnerable country, being a priority for Argentine diplomacy. Thus, Argentine and Uruguayan agents tried to seduce the Bolivians, telling them that the scope of the quadruple alliance treaty was not justified, while there were Bolivian territorial claims against the Peruvians and Chileans that the Bolivians still feared would not be able to defend them. Argentine diplomacy considered the interference of the Peruvians in the war against Paraguay, as well as in the internal affairs of the Argentine state, as something of less relevance compared to the interference of the Chileans, despite the fact that Peru and Chile collaborated (until end of 1867) against the objectives of the Triple Alliance, which would demonstrate discriminatory conduct of Argentine diplomacy against the Peruvians, portrayed as servile puppets and marionette of the Chileans. Meanwhile, Argentine diplomats came to accuse Chile of meddling in Bolivian politics, manipulating them to carry out anti-Argentine policies; and support the Revolution of the Colorados, carried out by federal opponents of the government of President Mitre.^[27]

The dissident press of Argentina and Uruguay (opposed to their governments and in solidarity with Chile and Peru), which questioned the foreign policy carried out by their foreign ministries, was attacked by their respective governments, being restricted and even prohibited from circulating in Argentina. Meanwhile, the newspapers of the Spanish immigrant communities, extolling the action of the Spanish Navy in the South Pacific against the Peruvian and Chilean navies (during the Spanish-South American War), circulated freely in the cities. Argentine, which evidenced anti-Peruvian and anti-Chilean biases. Another example of these biases occurs when analyzing and comparing the newspapers El Mercurio of Valparaíso and La Nación Argentina of Buenos Aires. Although, the 2 newspapers had links with the elites of their countries, and shared the commitment to vindicate the prevailing ideologies in the Criollo oligarchies (economic and political liberalism) in tune with the modernizing trends of the time. They also differed in their points of view to conceive of Americanism, being clearly distant in their approaches. While El Mercurio was totally convinced in promoting the cause of American solidarity, without making distinctions between brother and equal countries, La Nación, for its part, expressed contempt for these excessively fraternal tendencies, invoking the dichotomy between civilization and barbarism as a criterion to privilege before defining the American cause (presenting himself to the civilized Argentine and Uruguayan society as opposed to Paraguayan and Peruvian barbarism), to justify his actions in the war against Paraguay, as well as the repression of the liberal Buenos Aires government to the conservative uprisings through the interior of the country; They also wanted to legitimize the Eurocentric tendencies present in the Argentine elite and their unreserved acceptance of the prevailing social Darwinism, where Peruvian society (and the mestizo heritage in Latin America in general) was frowned upon for not being majority white societies, generating contempt.^[28]

Also, during the 1978 FIFA World Cup, it was reported that the Argentine dictator, Jorge Rafael Videla, tried to psychologically frighten the Peruvian soccer team by entering the team's locker room, shortly before the soccer match between Peru and Argentina.^[29]

On the other hand, the foreign minister of Peru, José de la Puente, during November 1978, welcomed the Argentine ambassador to Lima, who was an admiral whose objective was to achieve a military alliance between the two countries in case there was a war against Chile. . The Peruvian foreign minister was suspicious of potential anti-Peruvian feelings of the Argentine state based on historical experiences, responding to his offer with the following words:^[30]

"You have the bad luck of meeting a man who knows a lot about history (...) While we lost six thousand men and part of the national territory [in the War of the Pacific], you took advantage of the precise moment to peacefully conquer La Patagonia (...) Now you want Peru to enter the war, but later, while Chile and Argentina make up, we lose Arequipa"

In the 20th century, given the significant presence of illegal Peruvian immigrants in Argentina, to avoid their massive expulsion, the governments of both countries agreed to sign a reciprocal Migration Agreement in August 1998, which would make it possible to regularize the situation of Argentine migrants and Peruvians in the host country, granting a period of 180 days for this. The bilateral agreement will recognize the rights of the Peruvian worker in Argentina, but only up to a period of 12 months, after which he must undergo an Immigration Law, which various sectors of the opposition, as well as the Church in Argentina, had described as xenophobic and racist with anti-Peruvian overtones. Another of the institutions that showed a special interest in the migratory situation of Peruvians was the Commission of Peruvian Ladies Resident in Argentina, chaired by Mrs. Carmen Steimann. In a meeting organized by the Peruvian community in Buenos Aires, Ms. Steimann would protest the attitude of the Argentine Gendarmerie, accusing them of carrying out an obsessive and cruel persecution of immigrants, mostly just for being Peruvian and Bolivian.^[31]

In addition, Carlos Menem is often accused of having an anti-Peruvian attitude after selling weapons to Ecuador when it was in a war against Peru, generating another accusation of treason against Peruvians after the help that Peruvians gave to Argentina in the Malvinas War.^[32] Between 1995 and 2010, diplomatic relations between Argentina and Peru remained frozen at their lowest historical point. Although later the Government of Argentina ended up expressing its reparation to the Peruvian State for this action.^[33][34] While some Peruvian newspapers concluded that Cristina Fernández had complied with what was morally due to the claims of dignity in Peruvian society with those words, other newspapers considered that this had not been enough, coming to suspect a possible camouflaged anti-Peruvian conduct. Examples of such tendencies could be seen in the newspaper Correo, on whose cover the headline "He did not ask for forgiveness" would appear, later pointing out that "Fernández was very cautious in his speech and only used the word 'reparation' in allusion to the questioned sale of arms to Ecuador". Another case was that of Peru 21, which considered that in reality the Argentine president "almost asked for forgiveness".^[35]

Recent cases of anti-Peruvianism were seen in 2000, as the magazine La Primera denounced a "silent invasion" of Peruvians and Bolivians, with a cover illustrating a dark-skinned man with a missing tooth (through Photoshop) to increase the ideological content of the note^[36][37] or in 2010 when the newspaper La Nación denounced an invasion of Bolivians, Peruvians and Paraguayans in Argentina, which unleashed a wave of xenophobic and racist comments from readers.^[38][39]

Controversial statements with anti-Peruvian overtones in some political sectors of the country are also mentioned, such as those of Justicialist senator Miguel Ángel Pichetto, when mentioning that Peru transferred its security problems through the migration of its criminals to Argentina, reaching a generalization that the main towns in the country were taken by Peruvians and that Argentina incorporates all this hangover, the controversy became even greater when even the Government of Argentina agreed with those statements.^[40][41] He also went so far as to affirm that Argentina has become ill for giving a pardon to a deported Peruvian (for having sold drugs) and that second chances should not be given,^[42] as well as accusing Peruvians of being responsible for the crimes in the slums. and the drug trade among young people, although clarifying that he did not say it for all Peruvians.^[43][44] Later there was concern, in 2019, of Peruvian diplomats about Pichetto's nomination for the Argentine vice presidency, due to having anti-Peruvian sentiments that could affect bilateral relations between the two countries.^[45] Later, in 2020, he declared that the Buenos Aires suburbs are the social adjustment of Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and Venezuela.^[46] It is usually assumed that this xenophobia of Argentines towards Peruvians and other nationalities they have been scapegoats many times for a political discourse that prefers not to assume its own responsibility.^[47][48]

Historically, relations between Peru and Bolivia have been cloudy and contradictory, with attempts at reunification and alliances between the two countries due to ethnic and cultural similarities, as well as a series of conflicts that have marked both populations, particularly the Battle of Ingavi, which is seen as the founding war of Bolivia^[49] and which has had an impact on the Bolivian imaginary a Peruvian-phobic tendency to see Peru as an expansionist nation that threatens its sovereignty and always opposes Bolivian interests, and a Peruvian reaction to dismiss to Bolivia as the rebel province of Upper Peru that must be annexed, which has generated discord between both peoples, deepened in the actions of their alliance in the War of the Pacific, where they have branded each other as traitors as the reason for their military defeat. All these historical actions have influenced the formation of the national identity in Bolivia with anti-Peruvian overtones.

Anti-Peruvian actions in Bolivia can be traced from the beginning of its creation as a country, in 1826 the Bolivians tried to appropriate Arica, Tacna and Tarapacá, signing the sterile Pact of Chuquisaca with a plenipotentiary of Gran Colombia to negotiate limits and the federation of Peru with Charcas, justifying itself in its historical, economic and geographical affinity and stability, since many believed that the division of the "two Perus" was transitory because the great Andean state projected by the Liberator would soon be established.^[50] In Lima the problem was that the delivery of territories had to be immediate, but not the payment of the debt, which caused the chancellor José María Pando and the President of the Governing Board Andrés de Santa Cruz to reject the treaty. They make it clear that they would hand over Arica or Iquique but only for immediate benefits.^[51] As for the federative idea, what was agreed established a very weak executive and legislature that would only generate chaos and make them dependent on Gran Colombia to maintain order, denouncing an anti-Peruvianism of part of Simón Bolívar and Antonio José de Sucre.^[52] Looking for alternatives, the Upper Peruvians sent the secret "legislative legation", a commission to ask Bolívar to suspend the decree of May 16, 1825 by which Arica was Peruvian, but they failed, since Bolívar did not want to provoke the people of Lima any more.^[53]

There is also the anti-Peruvian belief that the War against the Peru-Bolivian Confederation was a Peruvian betrayal of Bolivia due to Bolivian nationalist hoaxes that the opposition of several Peruvians to the Union was motivated by being governed by a Bolivian (Andres de Santa Cruz), and that to avoid it, they ended up allying with Chile to achieve the fall of the confederation. In that same war there was opposition from Bolivians, especially in Chuquisaca to preserve their privileges, when mentioning that the confederate project favored Peru to the detriment of Bolivia by creating 2 Peruvian states (Republic of North Peru and Republic of South Peru) that would generate a disadvantage in decisions by having the Bolivian state 1 vote of 3 (there being a general opposition to what was agreed in the Tacna Congress), Bolivians were already discontent since Santa Cruz had settled in Lima, when he was expected to rule from Bolivian Republic, so he was accused of being a Peruvianphile. Therefore, both the Bolivian opposition to Santa Cruz, as well as the Bolivian defense of the confederation against Agustín Gamarra, was nourished by anti-Peruvianism.^[54]

In addition, before, during and after the War of the Pacific, discourses emerged (especially in liberal groups) with anti-militarist, anti-oligarchic, anti-caudillo and anti-Peruvian tendencies, while antimilitarism was related to anti-Peruvianism. While the "guerristas" sought to continue the war and honour the alliance with Peru, the Bolivian conservatives or pacifists sought to achieve a peace agreement with Chile as soon as possible, even if to do so they had to rant against the Peruvians.^[55] Justiniano Sotomayor Guzmán's proposal in his letters to Hilarión Daza that "Bolivia has no better friend than Chile, nor worse executioner than Peru." Later, as Paz Soldán recalls, Bolivia (already an ally of Peru since 1873) tried to dispose of Arica and Pisagua, signing treaties with Brazil in 1878. There was also a Bolivian political sector with anti-Peruvian and pro-Chilean tendencies to change sides to the detriment of Peru to free itself from its influence in Bolivia's internal politics, as well as to obtain Arica to compensate for its access to the sea. Later, during the Question of Tacna and Arica, there were anti-Peruvian feelings in Bolivia, because the Bolivian people felt they had a moral right to claim the territory of Arica as their natural outlet to the sea, in addition to considering Peru's claims to recover Tacna and Arica (without giving Bolivia a port) was totally unacceptable and a betrayal of the Peruvian-Bolivian alliance; in the process, multiple insults were developed against the Peruvian community that lived in La Paz.^[56] This anti-Peruvian feeling was transferred to the foreign policy of the post-war country, for example, in 1895, Bolivia secret agreements with Chile, providing that Tacna and Arica would pass into the hands of Bolivia after the captivity. From 1902 they also secretly negotiated a peace without sea, until in the 1904 treaty they ceded their coastline to Chile in exchange for concessions and money (7 million pounds of gold), blocking the Peruvian recovery of Arica due to the construction of that railroad. port to La Paz with Chilean administration. In 1919, they even asked the League of Nations —via France— to appropriate Tacna and Arica.^[57]

Is also mentioned the propaganda campaigns carried out by the Bolivian press with an anti-Peruvian tendency when it came to border demarcations during the 20th century, for which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru had to intervene to put pressure on the Bolivian Foreign Ministry in 1938 against tendentious articles that they made Bolivian newspapers in an attempt to challenge the Demarcation Protocol of the province of Copacabana; Bolivian politicians were reportedly involved in this anti-Peruvian campaign, such as the Omasuyos deputy, Eguino Zaballa, who personally participated in the drafting of some articles on the alleged damages that Bolivia would suffer after the signing of the protocol with Peru.^[58]

In February 1975, meeting in Charaña, Hugo Banzer and Augusto Pinochet issued a joint declaration that led to the Chilean proposal to give Bolivia a maritime corridor north of Arica, which was impossible while the 1929 Treaty was in force, according to the which Peru has restricted sovereignty and recognized easements over Arica, and must be consulted before any possible change in the sovereignty of the territory. It came to be suspected that this was the rapprochement of a possible anti-Peruvian axis between Chile and Bolivia against another potential military alliance between Peru and Argentina during the Cold War.

With the passage of time, the distinction between pro-Peruvians and pro-Chileans has largely disappeared. Chile now has both Arica and Antofagasta, so Bolivian popular anger is more often directed against Chile. However, the power of the media to scandalize people for an outlet to the sea for Bolivia has retained its vigor over the years, and various politicians in the country throughout history often use it to distract attention from other issues of Bolivian politics, even if it involves anti-Peruvian narratives. Given this, it is loose to brand that Bolivian politicians have had anti-Peruvian tendencies throughout history, such as:

• Andrés de Santa Cruz, who would have had apparent contradictions in his geopolitical projects, due to a highland nationalism, in which he wanted both the reunification of Upper and Lower Peru (in a similar way to the Inca Empire or the Viceroyalty of Peru) as well as to consider dividing Peru into 2 states, one from the north and the other from the south, for the benefit of Bolivia's interests (in addition to recovering the territory of Arica for the benefit of Bolivia), which he envisioned as the "Macedonia of America" and which should have a leadership in the continent, to the detriment of the historical preponderance of Lima and Cuzco as poles of power.^[59]

  

  "When he felt strong, his dreams of power were those of those legendary Incas who descended from the mountains to bring peace, order, and progress to the coast. Then he opened himself to the ideal of 'pan-Peru', of Greater Peru. Bolivia would be the "Macedonia of America". If they beat and humiliated him and cornered him on the plateau, he wanted, not so much for revenge as for security reasons, next to Bolivia, a divided or impotent Peru. His maximum program was a strong Greater Peru and extensive, that is, the Confederation, with him as head. His minimum program was to govern Bolivia, but, at his side, the bifurcation of Peru into two states and the possible fall of the South State under Bolivia's sphere of influence Such is the explanation of his political behavior until 1839. Since then the exclusive approach to Bolivia has been accentuated more and more in his life as an outlaw, and from the depth of his disappointment he has to look at Peru as an enemy country."

  — Jorge Basadre, Reconsiderations on the historical problem of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation

  Despite the defeat of the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation (where Santa Cruz and other foreign politicians proposed to Chile plans to divide Peru as a sudden measure, without success),^[60] Santa Cruz, Orbegoso and many other of their supporters (after being defeated in 1839) took refuge in Ecuador, who planned to organize expeditions to northern Peru, to undermine the Gamarra regime.^[61] Santa Cruz, who still held out hope of regaining power in Bolivia (where he still had supporters), continued to plot against Peru from Ecuador (contributing to increase the anti-Peruvian sentiment in that country). Although it was unlikely that he would succeed in reconstituting the Confederation, Santa Cruz had a minimal plan: to annex southern Peru to Bolivia (and, if possible, weaken the northern Peruvian state in the face of an Ecuadorian territorial preponderance). From various letters preserved, it is known that his major plan was to promote an alliance between Ecuador and New Granada to attack Peru. It is therefore not by chance that at that time, Ecuador began its territorial demands towards Peru, claiming Tumbes, Jaén and Maynas. There is no doubt that those who incited Ecuador to make this claim were Santa Cruz and other enemies of the Peruvian government taking refuge in its territory. Since its birth as an independent state in 1830, Ecuador had not had a reason to complain against Peru for territorial reasons and they had even signed a friendship and alliance treaty in 1832, but it was only from 1841 when said nation refloated the old Bolivarian claim of Tumbes, Jaén and Maynas.^[62] As Minister Charún said in the negotiations of April 1842: "The question of limits existed long before; however, Peru had not received a complaint from Ecuador; beginning to receive them since the enemies of Peru took refuge in that country".
• José Ballivián, after the War between Peru and Bolivia he executed an anti-Peruvian policy taking advantage of the post-war spirit, however, over time he became unpopular, even the congress refused to declare war again in 1847. Among the actions that executed his government, was to try to conspire against the government of Ramón Castilla, as well as to issue adulterated currency by Bolivia, "el feble",^[63] to the detriment of Peruvian merchants in the Altiplano (and benefiting Argentines), in addition to prohibiting exports from Peru. Also, with the help of the Peruvian José Felix Ugayn, he sought to develop a separatist project that sought to annex southern Peru to Bolivia (primarily Moquegua, Tacna, Arica and Tarapacá). Finally, Peruvian-Bolivian relations would stabilize with the Arequipa Treaty of November 1848.^[64]

  

• Mariano Melgarejo, who during the arrangement of borders with Chile would have considered a proposal by Aniceto Vergara that harmed Peru by ceding its coastline to Chile in exchange for military aid to annex Tacna and Arica (at that time owned by Peru and coveted by Bolivia, because it was considered to its natural outlet for maritime trade since viceregal times),^[65] in addition to showing an incessant attitude of wanting to schism with Peru and the Treaty of Alliance.^[66] Julio Méndez points out Melgarejo's anti-Peruvianism in his desire to break the treaty, blaming him for of "Austrian intrigues of Chile". In addition, the writer Carlos Walker Martínez, according to what he recounts in his work Páginas de Viaje, that it was too risky to oppose Melgarejo in a drunken state, in which it was recurring to hear his speech about wanting to go to war against the Peruvians and the wishes of reconquer the southern Peruvian territory that Ballivián returned to the Peruvian government after the war between the two countries in 1841.^[66]
• Aniceto Arce, a member of the Liberal Party, who after assuming the Vice Presidency of Bolivia and from this position, would come to explicitly proclaim his adherence to the interests of the English capitalists, as well as his anti-Peruvian stance against the war. In a statement he would affirm that "the only salvation table for Bolivia was that it put itself at the forefront of the Chilean conquests". Manifesting, in addition, that Peru was "a nation without blood, without probity and without sincere inclinations to the ally that had agreed to the alliance "with the deliberate and sole purpose of ensuring its preponderance in the Pacific over Chile."^[67] Later, the famous writer from Santa Cruz, René Gabriel Moreno, would come out in defense of Arce for coincidences in his anti-Peruvian positions in Bolivian geopolitics. Referring to Campero, Moreno writes «Is it not well remembered that this man shouted War! War! While he was quietly contemplating the war efforts of his ally Peru?». Like Arce, Moreno is clearly opposed to any understanding or pact with Peru and maintains that Argentina, both the government and the people, were leaning in favor of Bolivia, repudiating, at the same time, Campero's strange and provocative attitude.^[68]

  

  In Arce's vision, Chile is presented as a vigorous country full of civic virtues that predicted its democratic culture, as well as a Great National Conscience, compared to Peru and Bolivia, weak and in the process of social disintegration due to their lack of modernity. Already in the middle of the War with Chile, Aniceto Arce warned, as the only prospect of peace, an explicit proximity to Chile, turning his back on Peru. The proposal meant breaking the allied front in exchange for the annexation of Tacna and Arica, it meant ultimately betraying the pact made with Peru.^[69] Undoubtedly, Aniceto Arce had strong common interests with the British financiers who maintained his headquarters in Chile. He was convinced that the development of Bolivia depended on the help that could be received from those capitalists. For its part, Chile had already seized the nitrate mines, thus rewarding the wishes of English capitalism. Now he saw in "Peru his worst enemy, where the United States began to entrench itself to counteract the English expansion on the Pacific coast."^[70] Later, Arce would express his anti-Peruvian sentiment in 1873: "As for the alliance that incessantly has been a very painful concern for me, I declare that I have never linked the slightest hope to it (...) Peru is a nation without blood, without probity and without sincere inclinations towards the ally." It must be assumed that Arce's anti-Peruvianism revealed his affinity for English interests favorable to Chile within the foreign intervention in the Pacific War, since these were both his interests and he also believed they were fundamental to augur the progress of Bolivia through the implementation of free trade and the incorporation of the country into international capitalism. Other Chilean and anti-Peruvian public figures of the time would be Luis Salinas Vegas, Julio Méndez and Mariano Baptista (who was the most prominent supporter of Chilean interests against that of the Peruvians, harshly criticizing the project of the United States Peru-Bolivians).^[71]

• 

  Ismael Montes, Bolivian president (veteran of the War of the Pacific and the Acre War) who deeply disliked Peru, seeking to carry out a pro-Chilean Realpolitik, in which he sought, with the help of Chile, to intimidate Peru, exerting public pressure, and thus achieve the transfer of sovereignty of Tacna and Arica to Bolivia. This was because he considered that Bolivia's natural geopolitics required obtaining access to the sea through the port of Arica, which was its natural outlet for geographical reasons. Montes sought to reverse the opinion that Bolivians had of their neighboring countries of "Peru good and brother, Chile bad and Cain of America", even if that could generate unreal and ephemeral perceptions. He came to abort integrationist policies of the previous government of José Gutiérrez Guerra (cancelling the promotion of exchange trips between students from both countries), he also developed incidents that agitated public opinion against Peru. After his government ended (although he was still leader of the ruling political party), he supported the Bolivian attempts in 1920 to seek to sue Peru before the League of Nations, through France (being Bolivia's ambassador in that country), to try to obtain the provinces of Arica and Tacna by any means.^[72] He later led attacks, with the help of Bolivian government officials, against the Peruvian Legation and its Consulates, as well as Peruvian residents and their property, in La Paz. He even tried, through Darío Gutiérrez (his deputy as ambassador in Paris) to accuse the Peruvian Foreign Ministry of being the true instigator of the incidents.^[73]
• Evo Morales, who has had an ambiguous position with the Peruvians during his government, going from promoting a highland brotherhood between both peoples of an indigenous nature,^[74][75] to having positions against Peru due to ideological differences, where relations almost broke during the government of Alan García for his meddling in the internal affairs of Peru,^[76] where the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, José Antonio García Belaúnde, accused him of having anti-Peruvian positions even before he was president of Bolivia^[77] and of that there is an attempt by Evo to make a historical revisionism to blame Peru for Bolivia's problems, such as its condition as a landlocked country,^[78] these strategies of Morales would have sought to replace the anti-Chilean discourse of the outlet to the sea, referring to the use of nationalism for populist purposes of internal politics (since many of these actions were prior to elections that determined their political future). Morales even threatened to denounce Peru before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, because the Peruvian government granted diplomatic asylum to three former ministers of former President Sánchez de Losada, whom Morales described as "criminals", which he later It provoked anti-Peruvian marches in the city of El Alto by leftist movements and sindicalist, who threatened to expel all Peruvian citizens from the country and vandalize the Peruvian consulate if the former ministers' asylum is not revoked.^[79]

  

  

  On the other hand, Morales also accused Peru of wanting to "appropriate" the "cultural expressions" of Bolivia, to the point that the Bolivian Minister of Culture, Pablo Groux, threatened to take the dispute to the International Court of Justice in The Hague because they postulate that the diablada is native to Bolivia and not to Peru.^[80] In the following 5 years there were approximately ten complaints of appropriation of Bolivian folklore.^[81] The issue came to touch the national pride of both countries and fueled an anti-Peruvian position in several Bolivian nationalists opposed proposals to consider them bi-national. In addition, Evo went so far as to affirm that the demand of Peru in The Hague against Chile, due to the maritime delimitation controversy between the two countries, had the objective of blocking Bolivian aspirations for an outlet to the sea (through a corridor on the land border between Peru and Chile), stating that he had information in which the Peruvian Government "knows that the lawsuit is going to lose it. They know it: they made the lawsuit to harm Bolivia."^[82] All this set of actions meant that the Peruvian Foreign Ministry had to deliver ten protest notes to its counterpart in Bolivia, since Morales does not respect the rules of conduct that must govern between heads of state.^[83] Subsequently, some nationalist sectors in Peru denounced Evo for having claims to carry out a geopolitical project that seeks control of copper, lithium and uranium, as well as an outlet to the sea for Bolivia, to the detriment of Peru.^[84] Also, the action of the members from his political party (Movimiento al Socialismo), like the actual presidente of Bolivia (Luis Arce) prompted a formal "vigorous protest" by the Peruvian Foreign Ministry, which accused the Bolivian government of "interference" in Peru's internal affairs, specially during the end of Pedro Castillo government.^[85]

Currently, in camba nationalist groups in Santa Cruz de la Sierra (like Movimiento Nación Camba de Liberación), there has been an opposite vision to what they accuse of colla domination of Bolivia, and in favor of a secession from the Camba homeland or at least greater autonomy of eastern Bolivia within the State.^[86] For this reason, they try to distance themselves from the concept of Upper Peru (interpreted as something purely Andean) and that they associate as belonging to the Collas, accused them of realize an "Upper-Peruvian neocolonialism" in Bolivia,^[87] which has promoted indirectly an anti-Peruvianism within the most radical sectors, due to the similar ethnic composition between southern Peru and western Bolivia due to their common altiplano-historical past.

In addition, a very particular anti-Peruvian xenophobic sentiment had been developed in Bolivia (motivated more for reasons of citizen security than for reasons of job offers), for which Peruvians have been accused of "importing advanced techniques to commit crimes" and of always generating an increase in crime in the regions where they settle, the belief being widespread that almost every Peruvian is a potential criminal. That anti-Peruvian climate was pointed out by Catholic priests such as Father Julián Suazo.^[88] It has been suspected that the Bolivian police themselves have a responsibility in promoting anti-Peruvian xenophobia, trying to blame Peruvians for the increase in crime (in instead of Bolivia's internal problems), as well as not efficiently preserving the human rights of Peruvian migrants in the face of outrages.^[89] For example, Colonel Javier Gómez Bustillos of the Bolivian Police (markedly anti-Peruvian) would have carried out attacks to Peruvian citizens in May 2001, and despite this, he continued to receive the protection of his government and his institution, who would have promoted him to the best positions in his institution instead of making him answer to the law.^[90] The Bolivian press and The media would have helped the development of this current of anti-Peruvian opinion, getting it to position itself in the Bolivian masses, by giving great emphasis in its programs to criminal acts carried out by Peruvian migrants, including the most serious crimes such as drug trafficking and those related to subversion. The death of a Peruvian soldier, the sailor Juan Vega Llana, also contributed to the latter, due to the fact that he was assassinated, in a central street of La Paz, by Peruvian people (classified as subversive) who were members of the terrorist group Sendero Luminoso, who They sought revenge for the Massacre in the prisons of Peru. These fears of subversive Peruvians were also fueled by the widely publicized kidnapping, together with the collection of a ransom of 1,000,000 dollars, of the Bolivian businessman and politician Samuel Doria Medina; a fact that was carried out by Peruvians (also classified as subversives) members of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA). All of which were events that generated a very bad reputation for Peruvians among Bolivian society, being incited by said prejudices and stereotypes by the morbidity of the press.^[31] Despite everything, Bolivian institutions report that, in the prison population of in that country, it is not a reality tha