I am watching a Chilenean TV series about the War of the Pacific (1879-1883). It's not a documentary, but a recreation of the war, with fictional and historical characters. In a way, it remained me of American productions, as Chilenean soldiers are depicted as heroes, and the army is exalted.
I was thinking that we could never have nowadays, in Argentina, a film or TV series like that about the War of the Triple Alliance (1864), let alone the Conquest of the Desert. One might think it's because those wars were uneven, and even involved something close to genocide, while the war of the Pacific was a mere territorial war, that didn't involved any attempt to destroy another nation. But the Triple alliance war was quite even at first, and meybe more justified (Paraguay invaded Argentina first) than Chile's invation of Bolivian Pacific Coast.
And it's more than that: we couln't even make a film or TV series about the War against Brazil (1825-1828, where on paper Brazil whould have won completely, but Argentina got a reasonable draw. The thing is, in modern Argentina, the exaltation of past wars against our neighbours is not something politically correct, and wouldn't get much funding. It would seem to go against the idea of Latin american integration, and the notion that we have left that stage behind.
The most importat thing, though, is the way the army is seen in Chile and Argentina. In Argentina, the last military dictatorship proved themselves extremly incompetent to handle the economy, capable of abhorrent human crimes abuses and incapable of wining the only foreign war Argentina fought in more than a century. The defeat at the war of 1982 was the the straw that broke the camel's back, and the military were force to retreat from power without prestige and without any guarantee that they wouldn't be prosecuted for crimes against human rights. They left without preserving any sphere of power in the newly born democracy. In other countries, like Chile, transition to democracy was much more gradual,and the military preserved many resorts of power in the newely born democracy (like a percentaje of the gains of CODELCO, Chile's main copper minning state owned company). More importanly, they weren't defeated in a war, and they didn't mess up the economy as much. They could still present themselves as "the army that was never defeated" (el ejército jamás vencido).
After Malvinas, the exaltation of militarism, or the idea that border conflicts or other problems could be solved through military means became umpopular in Argentina. In 1984, for example, voters in Argentina were asked wheteher they accepted a negotiatiad settlement with chile by which three disputed islands South of Tierra del Fuego (Picton, Lennox and another one) were to be given to Chile. More than 82% of the voters in the referendum favoured that view, something that might not have happened a decade earlier. But this is a result of Argentinean experiences. In other parts of Latin America, militarism hasn't become such an umpopular notion. I mean, there was an actual war between Ecuador and Peru in the mid nineties.
The challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to change things up so the army in Argentina is viewed as the Chilenean army is now, and viceversa.
I was thinking that we could never have nowadays, in Argentina, a film or TV series like that about the War of the Triple Alliance (1864), let alone the Conquest of the Desert. One might think it's because those wars were uneven, and even involved something close to genocide, while the war of the Pacific was a mere territorial war, that didn't involved any attempt to destroy another nation. But the Triple alliance war was quite even at first, and meybe more justified (Paraguay invaded Argentina first) than Chile's invation of Bolivian Pacific Coast.
And it's more than that: we couln't even make a film or TV series about the War against Brazil (1825-1828, where on paper Brazil whould have won completely, but Argentina got a reasonable draw. The thing is, in modern Argentina, the exaltation of past wars against our neighbours is not something politically correct, and wouldn't get much funding. It would seem to go against the idea of Latin american integration, and the notion that we have left that stage behind.
The most importat thing, though, is the way the army is seen in Chile and Argentina. In Argentina, the last military dictatorship proved themselves extremly incompetent to handle the economy, capable of abhorrent human crimes abuses and incapable of wining the only foreign war Argentina fought in more than a century. The defeat at the war of 1982 was the the straw that broke the camel's back, and the military were force to retreat from power without prestige and without any guarantee that they wouldn't be prosecuted for crimes against human rights. They left without preserving any sphere of power in the newly born democracy. In other countries, like Chile, transition to democracy was much more gradual,and the military preserved many resorts of power in the newely born democracy (like a percentaje of the gains of CODELCO, Chile's main copper minning state owned company). More importanly, they weren't defeated in a war, and they didn't mess up the economy as much. They could still present themselves as "the army that was never defeated" (el ejército jamás vencido).
After Malvinas, the exaltation of militarism, or the idea that border conflicts or other problems could be solved through military means became umpopular in Argentina. In 1984, for example, voters in Argentina were asked wheteher they accepted a negotiatiad settlement with chile by which three disputed islands South of Tierra del Fuego (Picton, Lennox and another one) were to be given to Chile. More than 82% of the voters in the referendum favoured that view, something that might not have happened a decade earlier. But this is a result of Argentinean experiences. In other parts of Latin America, militarism hasn't become such an umpopular notion. I mean, there was an actual war between Ecuador and Peru in the mid nineties.
The challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to change things up so the army in Argentina is viewed as the Chilenean army is now, and viceversa.
