Chile Forum

True RWS, but there is only so much you can do to open their eyes. Ultimately your life is your own and you have to proceed from there. My first circle outside of Chile starts with Mom and then the rest of the extended family.

Overall, the majority are in much better shape than the average American household to weather a long downturn.

And who knows, I may be the lifeline that will make an important difference when they do see the light.

As I'm in a similar situation, EE.UU., I empathize entirely; and I share your hope for the future.

Thanks very much ya all for all the input. It's given me a lot to think about and I don't say that just because it seems like the right thing to say...I mean that.

Thanks especially for those who posted the longer posts detailing more of their thoughts on this issue.

John...incidentally just so you know I think you and I think very much alike with regard to all things U.S. Your thoughtful response was especially valuable in helping me see some aspects of the other side of the story.

Carlos

admin wrote:Regarding Don el puelche's credentials on the issue, Carlos I think you need to spend some time searching through the forum archives. Puelche has written more about that time than anyone else on the forum. I believe there is likely a couple hundred postings by P on the subject, perhaps sufficient to fill a short history book.

Here is one I found with a quick search:
http://www.allchile.net/chileforum/viewtopic.php?t=306
There are at least 2 or 3 other big threads by P on the topic I can even remember, and perhaps more. I think he just does not want to retype everything. You got some reading to do before you can have proper debate with P.

Charles...I don't really understand what you are saying...or rather it makes no sense to me. I have never questioned el puelche's credentials with regard to the times of Allende or Pinochet. He has given me nothing to question in so far as the only thing he has done on this thread is throw insults and derogatory comments out without contributing anything meaningful to the discussion.

May I suggest that it's not a matter of me doing some reading before I can have a proper debate with el puelche but rather that it is a matter of his learning not to make derogatory comments and the like to those who he might disagree with?

Carlos

Carlos,

I kindof figured, which is part of the reason I'd posted here & elsewhere. I'm thinking we are a minority here. Of course, wouldn't be any fun if everyone agreed all the time....

RWS,

Most people today have little grasp of history, which precludes them from finding many things troubling, I doubt we differ much on that.

EE...expat,

I would not want to interfere with worthy pursuits, such as enjoying the fermented grape, on that we can agree.

Hyre

JHyre wrote:. . . . RWS,

Most people today have little grasp of history, which precludes them from finding many things troubling, I doubt we differ much on that. . . .

Thanks, JH. We agree on this (and, in significant measure, on our understanding of September 11, 1973). Ironically, I left a career in history thinking that I could have more effect on my society for the better in another field (working as a lawyer for the poor); now I'm preparing to leave this field for the former, even though I at times feel as though I were indeed a voice crying in the wilderness.

This is exactly my original point. Is what YOU READ happened in Chile sufficient for you to be "outraged" or "disgusted"? Put another way, do you have the right to be outraged? In the context of recent history, I would say you do not. Yes, it was bad, tragic, terrible, criminal, and so on; but, there are many many things in the World that are far more outrageous. What you find in history books will never be sufficient make a judgment about such human tragedies (that word does not properly capture most), and it does not do justice to the victims to simply take what is written. History of this sort deserves more than recreational reading.

My point is you need to walk around Auschwitz, have a beer with a victim of the Guatemalan civil war, listen to the air raid sirens in Nanjing China commemorating the Japanese slaughter, listen to an old Indian lady that was taken from her family by the U.S. government as a Child, or stand at the grave of a American soldier in Europe that died days before the end of WWII and was never brought home to really put these sorts of crimes and "tragedies" in perspective and start doing justice to the memory of the victims.

A history book is at best just the facts, and worse is slanted to the political views of the author; neither of which will capture the human suffering. Even in person, at best your are just getting a better sense of the tragedy; but, you are at least on some very limited basis actively taking part in the history and thus if only symbolically gaining some sort of authority to be outraged about it.

My point is that it is somehow unfair to the victims to even extend outrage from a mere reading of a document to such events. I believed it was Elie Wiesel that described such historical literature as a form of pornography.

In the case of Chile, the right to be outraged is first and foremost that of the Chileans (from both sides). Only second to that, do you need to spend time getting to know what Chile has done with that tragedy. See how the country has grown, run the balance sheet against what the country has become, what it has done to correct it, forgive, punish, or what needs is still left to be done. I am sure after that you will still have some right and authority to be outraged about it. And you should.

The only thing I have heard from people talking about that era where the long lines, food shortages, and out of control inflation.

I've not been in Chile for a long time yet, but I've had the exact same experience so far. For what it's worth I wholly concur with what's been written earlier in the thread re: Pinochet's rule being kindergarten play compared to what happened in about all Communist-ruled countries. Doesn't justify the regime's excesses, but puts things strongly in perspective.

admin wrote:This is exactly my original point. Is what YOU READ happened in Chile sufficient for you to be "outraged" or "disgusted"? Put another way, do you have the right to be outraged? In the context of recent history, I would say you do not.

What outraged me Charles was that people were just taken out and shot to death! Without trial. Without charge.

The context may help me understand what happened but no context can excuse away what was done to some people under the rule of Pinochet. And no context should diminish any outrage felt by anyone over the killing of one's without due process of law.

My point is you need to walk around Auschwitz, have a beer with a victim of the Guatemalan civil war, listen to the air raid sirens in Nanjing China commemorating the Japanese slaughter, listen to an old Indian lady that was taken from her family by the U.S. government as a Child, or stand at the grave of a American soldier in Europe that died days before the end of WWII and was never brought home to really put these sorts of crimes and "tragedies" in perspective and start doing justice to the memory of the victims.

We may have to just agree to disagree on your point Charles . I agree that coming into touch with a tragedy through personal experience, of the kind you mention, would lend a great deal to a more adequate understanding of any tragedy. For sure.

But I do not agree that one must engage in the kinds of personal experiences you mention in order to adequately gain a good and accurate understanding of what may have happened in a tragedy. Nor do I agree that outrage because of injustices suffered is inadequate or unjustified just because one has not walked in the footsteps of the tragedy through experiences like those you describe.

If that were so, then only those who have lived through a tragedy could serve as judges or as jurors over those who did the wrong. An ideal situation to be sure but not often practically possible.

I believe that we can, through adequate study and taking into account all relevant information from eye witnesses, hard evidence, and whatever else there is, form an adequate understanding of what happened in any tragedy. Without taking measures like those you mentioned to walk in the footsteps of the tragedy.

A history book is at best just the facts, and worse is slanted to the political views of the author; neither of which will capture the human suffering. Even in person, at best your are just getting a better sense of the tragedy; but, you are at least on some very limited basis actively taking part in the history and thus if only symbolically gaining some sort of authority to be outraged about it.

Not all history books are slanted Charles. I don't agree that one's outrage over unjust killing is less justified because they have not talked with persons who lived the tragedy. We may just have to agree to disagree .

My point is that it is somehow unfair to the victims to even extend outrage from a mere reading of a document to such events.

Why? Why is that unfair I mean? If one reads of unjust killing is it unfair to be outraged over that killing just because one has merely read about it? Are we to never get outraged and rightly so over anything we ever read unless we have first acquired some sort of personal experience of what it is we are reading about?

I can get outraged about what the Nazis did to the Jews without ever having personally spoken to a Jewish person who lost any relatives in the Holocaust. Is such outrage unjustified or somehow deficient because I have never done so? If you are saying it is Charles...well...I disagree.

Likewise I can and do feel outrage at the unjust killing that occurred under Pinochet's regime. No amount of understanding the context will diminish any outrage I may feel over unjust killing. It is the unjust and cold-hearted killing, whether it happened under Pinochet or Allende, that I feel outrage about.

It seems to me that if we cease to feel outrage over unjust and brutal killing that we cease to see such killing as outrageous.

In the case of Chile, the right to be outraged is first and foremost that of the Chileans (from both sides). Only second to that, do you need to spend time getting to know what Chile has done with that tragedy. See how the country has grown, run the balance sheet against what the country has become, what it has done to correct it, forgive, punish, or what needs is still left to be done. I am sure after that you will still have some right and authority to be outraged about it. And you should.

No matter what Chile has done Charles or what progress it has made...my outrage over the unjust killing that happened stems from the inhumanity of it. Not from a lack of understanding the context.

No context can excuse what happened. Nor does any progress made by Chile under Pinochet diminish the outrageousness of the unjust killing that happened.

Again...as I said...we may just have to agree to disagree .

Carlos

Went to the link Charles posted to El Puelche's posts on Allende/Pinochet. WOW. For those who haven't read them and have an interest in the topic, I strongly recommend that you set aside an hour or so and read them. They convey a level of detail and texture that you would not normally find in writing. Carolina and I spent a few hours discussing, it really brought back some memories for her, she was a teenager in the eighties and lived in Santiago & went to school near where many of the protests took place. Her memories exactly match those of El P....I say that because in a world of easily fabricated data on the internet, it is sensible to doubt what one reads. Based on everything I've ever heard my wife & in-laws discuss, P hit the nail on the head and was really there. By "there", I do not mean just present, but also aware & recording. If only more of this sort of perspective made it into writing, especially in English. BTW, P, Carolina laughed herself to near tears over the two gringos pointing up at the top of the building and the results, she felt it described Chileans perfectly.

Carlos, we agree on much. One place where we might differ is how we process data & react to human foibles. I do not feel a sense of outrage. Trials & Due Process would have created a much worse result, rather the way that an excess of DP has made the criminal problem worse in the US, or "more negotiation" (after 12 years of it) was a codeword for "never ever use force" with Iraq in 2003. Based on the circumstances, Pinochet et al did what had to be done - "Due Process" in 1970's would have resulted in much worse bloodshed in 1980's when MIR acted out, because more of the ba$tards would have been alive - and what happened during 80's with existing MIR was bad enough. Putting down an insurgency is tough, brutal, lengthy business. Our own system reflects that - Due Process in time of war is different than under normal circumstances & US Supreme Court rulings on "enemy combatants", including US citizens, allowed Roosevelt to execute US citizens for sabotage in WWII based on miltary trial only...yes, there was a trial, but if things got extreme enough, you'd see even that fade away (e.g., shooting looters on sight, drumhead hearings, etc.). I think that lack of DP was tragic....but I also think deaths in car accidents are tragic....and accept them as inevitable as long as we use cars, particularly if driven by people. I think deaths in Chile w/o trial were tragic, but I am not outraged because I see no better solution in a human world - only in the fantasy world inside the heads of law professors and the like.

John Hyre

PS: Charles, law professor jibe is not a snipe at your spouse, I have no idea what Chilean law professors are like. In the US they are almost invariably utopian Leftists...and generally rather unaquainted with the real practice of law in the real world.

JHyre wrote:...I think deaths in Chile w/o trial were tragic, but I am not outraged because I see no better solution in a human world - only in the fantasy world inside the heads of law professors and the like.

Hi John. Always enjoy hearing what you got to say!

I think I need to clarify something...Charles was the first one who mentioned my "outrage". I then embraced that and called it my own in the next post. But on thinking about it some more what I said in my original post was that I was disgusted. There is a difference.

I am not so much outraged in the sense of being indignant as I am rather disgusted that Chileans did the kinds of things they did to one another.

You say that there is no better solution in this world...than to have some tragic deaths occur. Presumably in the case of Chile, to have saved the country so to speak. At least that is the strong implication of what you seem to be saying. I disagree John.

Your statement makes it sound like the end justifies the means. Even if that means involves killing some in ways that are unjust, brutal, and without sympathy or compassion. I don't think that's what you are saying John for it would go contrary to the general bent of your opinions in general, but it sure sounds like you are saying that the end justifies the means. A slippery slope downward if there ever was one.

For me personally...there is indeed a better solution in this life John. And that solution is one that is based on my Christian faith in God. That nothing in this life is so valuable to hang on to that the murdering of another human being is justified. In other words if to save Chile from the communists or otherwise, just one life had to be murdered (never mind the thousands that actually were), then saving Chile was not and is not worth it. No country is worth that. And no such murder can be justified in the eyes of God whatever the temporal benefits of that murder may seem to be.

In the eyes of God John, I believe it would have been preferable for Chileans to loose all economically, politically, socially, and whatever other ..lly there is than for one person to have been murdered in cold blood.

Why? Because all that is temporal will not last. It is better to loose whatever we have in this life and do what is right in the eyes of God before whom we will stand in final judgment, than to hang on to it all and commit state sanctioned murder to keep it.

Carlos

Carlos, the context is all and that is why I must agree with Puelche that some of your opinions sound arrogant and a little uninformed for those who know the whole story. You cannot judge "crimes" in a war state as easy as you do, that is why I refrain to cristize actions in Israel, palestinian territories or balkans, when people is anger and fear for his own life the first thing you forget is the Versailles convention and christian principles.

Is very easy to critize many years after, confortably seated in a couch and reading the story hypocritally rewrited (the history often is wrote to justify errors) and many miles away from where the real thing happened, remember that, after all those years there are many people supporting the former military rule and many of us who supported the Allende regime now consider military rule as a necesary evil, just an instrument of a much wider historic process as it was the leftist revolution in the 60s.

What I try to say is that 1973 was a process much wider than the usual maniquea story of good guys versus the bad ones (you choose who is who), we, the leftists in those years was convinced that we can change the country for better using violence, this created a dinamic of more and more violence up military was oblied to act, many of crimes happened later was tolerated and endorsed by most people because the hate who divided the country and, if leftists has been the oportunity, they had commited the same or worse.. Military was just an instrument and violence a consequence of the social polarization, dont trust what you read, because is very easy to turn into fariseo.

After all those years most of chileans know well how was the real story, that is why many of things legated by military rule has been untouched, despite all the hypocrital speeches