I love the magazine inserts that come in the weekend editions of "El Mercurio" (Chile's primary newspaper). I rather enjoy reading them and finding out about all things related to the Chilean culture and the happenings in Santiago itself.


I grew up learning the in's and out's of American History: the wars we fought in, the important figures that helped shape our country, the geography, the movements and the changes we encountered and the obstacles we overcame to arrive where we are today, whether good or bad. So when I moved to Chile last year, I realized that I arrived with very limited knowledge of why Chile is the Chile it is today, who was involved, which historical dates were the most important and who played a role in shaping society. Of course I know who Pinochet was, who Allende was ... but what did Pratt do? Is he the naval hero or is it Bernardo O'Higgins? And mind you, the only reason I even know the names Pratt and O'Higgins is because every city in Chile has streets named after these two so I gather, they must be important, right? There are holidays that randomly come around and G will have the day off from work and I ask "To what do I owe the pleasure?" and the response will be the likes of "El combate naval de Iquique." (Iquique's - city in northern Chile - naval combat.) Oh. Right. That.

Apparently baby's got a lot to learn about her new home.

Which is why I was particularly happy that this past "Sabado" magazine was a special on the Bicentennial and as such, many fun and interesting historical "datos" (or facts / information) were featured. My personal favorite from last weekend's issue: "Chile Puertas Adentro: Como han cambiado nuestras costumbres." (Chile behind closed doors: how our customs have changed.) The article gave a very top-line but interesting look at how family life has changed, what tendencies have been left behind and which ones still remain intact in Chilean family life.

The article first begins with stating what we know of Chile today: 60% of families consist of both a mother and a father and 27% of families are single-parent; the woman not only works outside the home but makes up 50% of the Chilean workforce. We read that there are now more divorces than marriages, that Chilean women begin to have children at about age 30 (give or take) and the average woman will not have more than 2 children. Further, it is now a viable option to just have one child.

From here, the article takes us back 100 years to what the family life was like at the turn of the century. The most fundamental difference between families then and families now is that the men and women of the last century did not typically marry for love. Rather, they married to procreate (how romantic.) Couples were introduced and were pressured to marry based on family preferences (either personal or professional) and this led to the majority of husbands turning outside the marriage for sexual satisfaction and even love. As an outsider, I still see a little of this in Chile in that many, many couples I know have been together for 5,6,7 or more years BEFORE ACTUALLY GETTING MARRIED. Then they seem to get married because it's the logical next step. Yeah, I gather that they must love one another but after 7 years together, at some point there must be way more family and societal pressure to marry than there is heart-wrenching, burning desire to do so. Nowadays I wouldn't go as far as to say that men opt to cheat since I'll take the information regarding growing divorce of evidence that greener pastures will be pursued sans infidelity. Plus, in the more elite circles of Chile, I am willing to bet that little has changed with regards to family preferences and who a man or woman chooses to marry. If they come to say it doesn't ever matter ... I call LIAR!

The article then moves on to talk about where the family spent the majority of their time. Since central heating systems are still lacking in Chile, and chimneys weren't introduced until the 1930s, the majority of Chileans used "braseros" to heat their homes at the turn of the century. I had to look up what a traditional brasero looked like and this is what I found:

These were used across all social classes and the primary consequence of this less-than-cozy apparatus is that it forced the family to spend the majority of their time together in one room of the house. The article then states that family members would wear coats to move about other areas of the house ... which got me thinking that it doesn't seem to me that that's changed much nowadays. I'm pretty sure we aren't going to see coals warming the homes of the average Chilean but I'm fairly certain that no matter the social class, the lack of heating in Chile forces everyone to walk around the house looking like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man...


...or Randy from the movie "A Christmas Story" ...

What have you.

Santiago, with a population of about 544,000 people back then, was a considerably smaller city than it is now. Hence, people either walked from Point A to Point B or rode around in horse drawn carriages. The men worked, went home for lunch, took a nap and then went out to work again. Mind you, this concept of closing for lunch is still relevant outside Santiago and it's like you've been in the DeLorean and have been shuttled back in time when you encounter a sign that tells you the store will reopen at 3 pm. Happy hour seems to still be around since back in the day the men would go to their "club" after work (whether it be La Union, Club Hipico, a Mason club, firefighters club, etc) and to quote Kate from Titanic, I imagine they were also inclined to "congratulate themselves on being masters of the universe." Woman had their little get togethers as well and after a long day of duties at home, would invite other women over and partake in a little gin rummy and conversation. It sounds to me like they may have also dipped into their husband's wine and may have gone crazy showing one another their ankles. Call me crazy.

Other interesting tidbits about the article include:

• Children did not eat at the same table with their parents until they reached puberty. Since this term wasn't coined until later, those that had reached it were identified as those who no longer wore "short pants." I guess young boys wore shorter slacks back then ... the article doesn't mention anything pertaining to females (as I'm sure they didn't go around wearing long or short pants, ever) but I gather once the girl began menstruating, she too got the privilege to eat with the adults. Though how embarrassing. You arrive at the table and not only does your brother know what's up with your body but so does your dad! Ewww.
  

• The term "mama" actually came about from the elite's use of wet nurses back in the day (taking from the verb "mamar" which means "to nurse or feed.") The name and idea of a "nana" is actually as recent as 30 years ago and has gained popularity as the times have changed and more women pursue interests and goals outside their home.
  

• Back then 98% of Chileans claimed to be Catholic, with at least 50% of them being practicing Catholics. Now, observing Catholics make up 7% of the population.

The article concludes stating the one thing that hasn't changed at all in the last 100 hundred years here in Chile: women continue to be the ones responsible for "keeping" the home and that "domestic co-responsibility" is something that continues to be non-existent in the majority of Chilean households. This despite the fact that women now work outside the home and like I said, make up at least 50% of the country's work force ...

Thinking, thinking, thinking ....Hmmm ... why does that sound so familiar ...?

Labels: history, Santiago, Tangents