Indigenous · History Classes · Grades 10–13 · College · University

The Putumayo — Rubber, Slavery and the Blue Book

History Class · Level band: Grades 10–13 · College · University

English edition — the language editions of the history classes are outstanding and will follow the site’s translation pattern; none is fabricated here.

The Putumayo, c. 1900–1912

Class: RESEARCH. Compiled documented record. This file rests on two carrying witnesses, labelled as such throughout: W. E. Hardenburg [PRIMARY WITNESS], an American engineer whose exposé first forced the regime into print, and the official British Blue Book of 1912, which published the consular report of Roger Casement, beside the depositions gathered by the Peruvian judge Rómulo Paredes (1911). Their testimony is evidence; their figures are stated as their figures. The company's own vocabulary — "civilising company," in the phrase its critics quoted back at it — is the perpetrators' category, quoted and labelled where it appears. Where the witnesses and later summaries disagree on a number, the disagreement is printed and never silently resolved.

1. The region and the company

The Putumayo district of this file is the forest between the Putumayo and Caquetá rivers and their tributaries — the Igara Paraná and Cara Paraná among them — in territory disputed in this period between Peru and Colombia. Its peoples included the Huitoto (Witoto; also rendered Murui), Bora, Andoke (Andoque), Ocaina, Nonuya, Muinane, Resígaro, and neighbouring peoples, living in clan settlements across a region with no effective presence of either claimant state.

Wild rubber made the region valuable: the latex had to be gathered across vast forest distances by people who knew the forest — the peoples who lived there. Through the 1890s Colombian rubber houses established stations in the district, among them Larrañaga's at La Chorrera on the Igara Paraná and the Calderón brothers' at El Encanto on the Cara Paraná. Between about 1903 and 1907 the Peruvian operator Julio César Arana — head of the Casa Arana of Iquitos, his brother-in-law Pablo Zumaeta its manager there — absorbed those houses and with them control of the district. On 26 September 1907 the enterprise was re-registered in London as the Peruvian Amazon Company, with £1,000,000 capital and British directors on its board; Arana remained its directing force in Peru. The London registration, and the company's employment of overseers recruited in Barbados — British colonial subjects — later gave the British state its standing to investigate, and this record its Blue Book (§4).

2. The mechanism

The regime Casement, Hardenburg, and Paredes each independently documented rested on four interlocking parts.

Debt-slavery. Labour was engaged through the advance system: goods — cloth, tools, trinkets — were pressed on a worker at company valuations, creating a debt (habilitación) that could be discharged only in rubber, at company prices, and in practice never was discharged. Casement recorded the exchange rate of the system in his diary at La Chorrera, 29 October 1910: the worker is compelled "by flogging, by chaining up, by long periods of imprisonment and starvation, to agree to 'work' for the Company, and then … given 5 shillings' worth of absolute trash, he is hunted and hounded and guarded and flogged … until he brings in from 200 to perhaps 300 times the value of the goods he has been forced to accept" [Casement, Putumayo journal, 1910]. The vocabulary of trade — advance, debt, payment — covered a relation in which the worker was not paid wages, could not leave, and could not work the debt off. Peru had abolished slavery in 1854; the regime's legality rested on calling this something else.

Quotas enforced by torture. Each station set its workers a rubber quota, the fabrico, to be delivered at stated intervals. Station chiefs were remunerated by commission on the rubber their sections delivered, which put the incentive to extract at the level of the man holding the whip. Shortfall and attempted flight were punished by flogging — the scarred backs photographed by the 1910 commission and reproduced in Hardenburg's book became the regime's visual signature — and by the cepo, the stocks. Casement's report described the cepo regime in terms the Blue Book printed: "Men, women, and children were confined in them for days, weeks, and often months. … Whole families … were imprisoned — fathers, mothers, and children, and many cases were reported of parents dying thus, either from starvation or from wounds caused by flogging, while their offspring were attached alongside of them to watch in misery themselves the dying agonies of their parents" [Casement report, 17 March 1911, in the Blue Book, 1912]. At some stations a "double cepo" restrained neck, arms, and ankles together, adjustable to children; Casement recorded small boys confined face downwards in it and flogged in that posture (Blue Book testimony, summarised in the subsequent literature). Mutilation, machete killings, shooting of bound prisoners, and burning alive appear in the depositions collected by all three investigations; they are recorded here as deposition testimony, corroborated across the three, not as any single witness's invention.

Correrías. The workforce was not merely held; it was hunted. Armed raiding parties — correrías — were sent out to capture people from settlements not yet under company control and bring them in as labour, and to recover fugitives. Casement told the House of Commons Select Committee that armed parties were sent to hunt people "as if they were wild animals," that those captured were flogged if they failed their quota, and that those who ran away were killed (Casement, evidence to the Select Committee, 1912–13). Barbadian testimony in the Blue Book described individual correrías in which most of a party of prisoners was killed on the march in. Flight, like shortfall, was answered with lethal force, because the system's scarce input was not rubber — the forest was full of rubber — but people.

Starvation. Workers received no rations adequate to the labour demanded and were denied the time to plant, hunt, and fish for their own subsistence; food was requisitioned from the settlements besides. Hardenburg's volume summarised the original charge: the people were put to work "without payment, without food, in nakedness" [Hardenburg volume, 1912, summary of the charges]. Casement's death arithmetic (§5) counted people "killed by deliberate starvation" — starvation "brought about by crop destruction" — alongside people directly murdered. At the level the witnesses state it, hunger was one of the quota system's instruments, not a side effect.

Named massacres rest on deposition testimony, and their figures conflict between depositions — both facts printed. At La Chorrera in September 1903, Ocaina workers who had failed the rubber weight were flogged, burned, and shot: Judge Carlos A. Valcárcel's investigation gave 25 killed, a United States State Department report gave 30, and the eyewitness Daniel Collantes gave 40 — range for this record, 25–40. At Último Retiro, depositions collected by Hardenburg described station chief José Inocente Fonseca and six employees shooting a summoned gathering of some hundreds of people, with 150 killed — a deposition figure, carried as such. These are the best-documented single episodes, not a sum: no witness attempted a station-by-station massacre total, and this file does not construct one.

3. The first witness — Hardenburg

The regime's exposure began in Iquitos: the Peruvian journalist Benjamín Saldaña Rocca published the first denunciations in his newspapers La Felpa and La Sanción in 1907, and was driven from the city for it. Walter Ernest Hardenburg, a young American railway engineer travelling through the district in 1907–08, was detained and robbed by company agents; he escaped, gathered depositions from former employees and other witnesses, and carried the dossier to London. His articles in the magazine Truth in 1909 forced the question into British politics, and his book followed: W. E. Hardenburg, The Putumayo: The Devil's Paradise (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1912), edited by C. Reginald Enock, who called its record "perhaps the most terrible page in the whole history of commercialism."

Status of the witness, stated plainly: Hardenburg is a [PRIMARY WITNESS] to his own detention and to conditions he himself saw; for much of the book he is a compiler of sworn depositions and testimony gathered from others, including company employees. This file cites him accordingly — as eyewitness where he says he saw, as collector of named testimony where he prints depositions. The company and the Peruvian government denied his account in full. Its test is §4: the British state's own investigator confirmed its substance in almost every particular.

4. The official witnesses — Casement and Paredes

In 1910 the Foreign Office sent Roger Casement, consul-general at Rio de Janeiro and the investigator of the Congo rubber regime six years earlier, to report on the district. He travelled it from September to December 1910, taking testimony — centrally, the depositions of the Barbadian overseers, British subjects employed inside the system — and delivered his report on 17 March 1911. After delay, the government published it in July 1912 as a parliamentary Blue Book: Correspondence respecting the Treatment of British Colonial Subjects and Native Indians employed in the Collection of Rubber in the Putumayo District, Miscellaneous No. 8 (1912) [Cd. 6266] — the official source for this file. A follow-up visit in late 1911 found the regime's principals unprosecuted and its defences organising.

Beside him stands the Peruvian state's own investigation. The Peruvian judiciary commissioned Judge Rómulo Paredes, who travelled the district in early 1911 and returned with a report of some 1,200 pages (summaries give 1,242 pages; others describe a thirteen-hundred-page report — the scale, not the exact foliation, is what the sources agree on) confirming, from depositions taken under Peruvian authority, the same system: torture, killings, enslavement, destruction of villages, and the seizure and abuse of women and children. Judge Carlos A. Valcárcel, supporting Paredes, issued more than 200 arrest warrants against company employees; the warrants were annulled by the local courts, named killers fled, and Valcárcel himself was removed, reinstated, and removed again. The Paredes commission matters as corroboration from the least impeachable direction available: the company's own national judiciary, investigating its own citizens, found the foreign witnesses' account true.

5. Casement's arithmetic — the documented figure, and its limits

Casement attempted the calculation no register existed to settle: rubber output was a matter of company record; population was not — there had never been a census. He worked from a Peruvian consular estimate of 50,000 people in the district in 1907 (Carlos Rey de Castro's figure) against competent estimates of only 7,000–10,000 remaining a few years later, and stated his conclusion to the Select Committee in 1913 in his own hedged words: "I put the figure at about 30,000. That was my opinion but I may be wrong, and it might be an excessive estimate on my part" [Casement, evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Putumayo, Minutes of Evidence, 1912–13].

The documented figure for this record is therefore Casement's: approximately 30,000 deaths in the years 1900–1911, against approximately 4,000 tons of rubber exported from the district in the same period — roughly seven to eight lives per ton, on his arithmetic. It is an investigator's estimate built from consular figures and testimony, printed here with his own caveat attached, because he attached it.

On the larger figure, this file states its rule in terms: later summaries run as high as 40,000 deaths. That figure may be printed in this record only as the upper end of the range, attributed to the later summaries that carry it — never as the headline figure, never as Casement's, and never as a count. The range for this record is ~30,000 (Casement, 1911–13) to 40,000 (later summaries). Figures in popular summaries running far higher — to 100,000 and beyond — have no documentation at the Blue Book's level and are not carried. The caution runs in both directions: the Peruvian anthropologist Alberto Chirif, who has worked to recalculate the toll, has cautioned that even 30,000 may be excessive — while stating, in the same reported remarks, "but there was extermination" (Chirif, as reported in the 2012 centenary coverage). The dispute is over the size of the catastrophe, not over whether the system in §2 existed.

6. The aftermath

Exposure ended the company; it did not produce justice, and it did not end the exploitation of the district at a stroke.

• The House of Commons Select Committee on Putumayo heard Hardenburg, Casement, and Arana himself through the winter of 1912–13 and reported on 5 June 1913. In the language of its conclusions as carried in the subsequent literature, it charged Arana with "callous indifference and guilty knowledge" and the British directors with "negligent ignorance." Arana's defence throughout was that he had not been told and had witnessed nothing himself.
• The Peruvian Amazon Company went into liquidation in 1913 — Arana himself having been appointed a liquidator of it in 1911. The scandal, and the collapse of wild-rubber prices as Asian plantation rubber reached the market, ended the regime in its corporate form; Arana interests continued operating in the region in other forms for years after.
• Prosecutions collapsed. Of the more than 200 warrants issued on the Paredes–Valcárcel investigation, the local courts annulled the process; a few employees were briefly arrested and released; the worst-named station chiefs escaped across borders and were never brought back. Julio César Arana was never tried and never prosecuted. He went to the Peruvian Senate as senator for Loreto in 1922 and died in Lima in 1952, aged eighty-eight. The Select Committee had already noted the jurisdictional fact that structured the impunity: Arana, not being a British citizen, could not be tried by British courts, and the Peruvian courts at Iquitos — a week or more by river from the stations — did not try him.
• The territory itself passed out of the dispute in the following decade: under the Salomón–Lozano settlement of 1922 the Putumayo district was assigned to Colombia, and La Chorrera stands on Colombian territory today. A century after the Blue Book, in October 2012, Colombia's President Juan Manuel Santos travelled to La Chorrera and apologised to the peoples of the district for the rubber-era crimes (BBC Mundo, centenary coverage, 12 October 2012).
• The peoples survive, reduced. Witoto (Murui), Bora, Andoke, Ocaina, and the neighbouring peoples of §1 are living peoples in Peru and Colombia. The reduction is nonetheless written into their demography and their social fabric: Peruvian anthropologist Alberto Chirif's summary of the long damage is that the deaths "broke up the structure of the clans," which lost the elders who carried each clan's history (Chirif, as reported in centenary coverage). The Andoke, never a large people, were reduced to a remnant. This file is therefore a mechanism and regional entry in the Genocide Record — the record of a system that destroyed tens of thousands of lives and shattered the peoples it worked — and not an extermination account: no people named here is filed as ended, and the Census does not carry them as such.

7. What cannot be held to standard

• "40,000 died in the Putumayo" as a headline or settled figure (see §5 — Casement's ~30,000 is the documented figure; 40,000 is the attributed upper end of the range only).
• Any figure above that range — 100,000 and higher forms circulate without Blue Book-level documentation for this district and period; not carried.
• Hardenburg cited as eyewitness to every atrocity his book prints. He witnessed his own detention and part of what he describes; the greater part of the book is collected, named deposition testimony, and is cited as such (§3).
• The claim, from the company's defence, that abuses were the unauthorised acts of rogue station staff unknown to Iquitos and London. It is contradicted by the commission system (§2), by the Paredes findings, and by the Select Committee's conclusions (§6); Casement's own judgement, labelled as his opinion, was that the system was "deliberately designed" and its Peruvian directors "quite cognisant of the state of things in the Putumayo" (evidence to the Select Committee, 1912–13).
• Any treatment of the Putumayo as the whole of Amazon rubber slavery. Casement himself testified that the system, or something like it, prevailed wherever wild rubber was gathered from unsubjected peoples in that part of the world; this file documents the one district where the evidence reached Blue Book standard, and claims no more territory than that evidence covers.

Sources for this file

Hardenburg, The Putumayo: The Devil's Paradise (T. Fisher Unwin, 1912), ed. C. Reginald Enock [primary witness and collected depositions] • Casement, report to the Foreign Secretary (17 March 1911) and Putumayo journal (1910), published in Correspondence respecting the Treatment of British Colonial Subjects and Native Indians employed in the Collection of Rubber in the Putumayo District, Miscellaneous No. 8 (1912) [Cd. 6266] — the Blue Book • Paredes commission report and depositions (Peruvian judicial investigation, 1911); Valcárcel warrants • House of Commons Select Committee on Putumayo, Report and Minutes of Evidence (1912–13) • Saldaña Rocca, La Felpa and La Sanción (Iquitos, 1907) • Goodman, The Devil and Mr Casement (2009) • Farje, "Roger Casement and the Putumayo Atrocities" (University of London dissertation, 2003), transcribing Select Committee evidence • Chirif, remarks as reported in the 2012 centenary coverage (BBC Mundo, 12 October 2012, and associated reporting).

Back to the Grades 10–13 · College · University classes All History Classes