On June, 3, 2014, our Capstone in Chile group toured the Museo de la Memoria y los Derechos Humanos (human rights museum) in Santiago, Chile. The exhibits start with information surrounding the coup d’état that occurred on September 11, 1973, which was the bombing of La Moneda (the Chilean presidential palace). From the coup, the exhibits showed how other countries viewed the events, the people who died, people’s experiences in torture centers, and the children that were affected. The museum was very shocking for me because I had no idea that any of these events had occurred in Chile. I also was taken aback by the United States involvement in the dictatorship of Chile. The museum left an impact on me, and made me question the United States involvement in other things, past or present.
The museum was very powerful and moving. In one section of the museum, there was a room with candles that overlooked the photos of everyone who died. It was a very solemn room that helped you understand the magnitude of the time period. The museum portrayed the side that was against Pinochet very well. However, I was a little disappointed that it did not show Pinochet and his supporters’ side. I wanted to know what Pinochet’s reasoning was, what pushed them to this, and more details on decisions Pinochet had made during his reign.
The human rights museum connects to Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine. The section of the book we read covered Pinochet’s reign in Chile and the economic crises that occurred. This reading went into a little bit more depth about some of the decisions that Pinochet made, but a majority of this reading discussed the economic crisis that was caused by the “Chicago Boys.” The “Chicago Boys” were Chilean group of U.S.-trained economists who went to the University of Chicago. They learned Milton Friedman’s ideologies about “free markets,” which they brought to Chile. When Pinochet’s regime took over, it provided the “Chicago Boys” a perfect opportunity to put their economic ideologies into place (Klein 2008). In her book, Klein discusses the blatant disregard for human rights that Pinochet had. She discusses how people were rounded up into stadiums and killed as if it were a form of entertainment. The reading was more graphic than the museum. The museum discussed the struggles that Chilean citizens went through, but it did not seem to tell us the full extent of the violence.
The museum also seemed to skim over the economic crisis that Pinochet and the Chicago Boys caused. In Klein’s book, she discusses how the unemployment rate rose to thirty percent under Pinochet. When Allende was president, the unemployment rate was only three percent. Pinochet had managed to make the unemployment rate increase to levels that were unheard of in the world. On top of the unemployment rate skyrocketing, people were no longer able to purchase the food they needed (Klein 2008). The cost of everything increased rapidly, and soon diets consisted of only bread because everything else was considered a luxury. Milton Friedman, from the United States, stated that this will only occur for a few months, and that the economy would regulate itself after the shock. The depression continued for ten years, and not a few months (Klein 2008).
The United States involvement in Pinochet’s reign is very disturbing, but not shocking. In the freshman studies class, The Sixties, we learned about the United States involvement in Vietnam, and some of the unethical methods that were used. Dr. Peter Austin discussed how napalm was dropped on villages in North Vietnam to try to eliminate some of the communist soldiers. However, not only communist soldiers were affected by the napalm, women and children were also burned. The United States had no regard for the people that were killed during the Vietnam War. Their only goal was to try to eliminate communism. It is that belief that caused the United States to get involved in the Chile situation, and we helped cause the loss of many lives once again. All of these lives were lost in the name of eradicating communism.
When I found out that we were going to the Human Rights Museum, I was excited, nervous, and a little scared. I had no idea what we were about to see because before this we were just given hints about the coup. We were finally going to figure out what the events were that lead up to it, people’s beliefs, people’s pain, and the magnitude of the coup and Pinochet’s reign. I assumed that after entering this museum, all of my questions about the coup would be answered, and I was excited about that. However, throughout the visit of the museum, my questions were not answered.
One of my strengths is that I like to see both sides to an issue. I feel that you cannot truly formulate your opinion of the situation without knowing both the opponents and proponents. Unfortunately, this museum was very one sided, and it left me asking for more information. I wanted to know the events that led to the coup and Pinochet ruling. I wanted to know what Pinochet’s response was to the issues talked about. I wanted to know what Pinochet’s justification was for the persecutions. All of my questions still remain unanswered. Unfortunately, my major weakness at the museum was my Spanish ability. I was not able to read many of the exhibits, and I feel like it really limited my understanding of the museum. In fact, maybe some of my questions had been answered, and I just did not realize it.
One of my traits that helped during the museum tour was that I did not get frustrated when I did not understand what an exhibit was saying or portraying. I tried to piece it together to the best of my ability, and then when I couldn’t figure out anymore, I moved on. Also, my identity as an American was put into question during the museum tour. I wish the museum went into more detail about our involvement in the situation. I knew we trained some of the Chilean military officers, but I did not know how many or what we taught them. I began questioning what we gained out of aiding the Chilean junta. Overall, I do not feel as anything was challenged or confirmed on this visit. The only thing that left me with questions was that the museum was one sided.