Customer Reviews

I, Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

"I, Rigoberta Menchu" is one of those books which seems to be overshadowed by controversy. A Quiche Mayan woman of Guatemala, Rigoberta Menchu told her story orally to anthropologist Elisabeth Burgos-Debray in Paris in 1982. Burgos-Debray transcribed the story and published in Spanish in 1983; Ann Wright's English translation appeared in 1984. The book, which both gave a voice to the Native American culture of Guatemala and exposed the brutality of Guatemala's civil war, became an international sensation. Menchu received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992.

Anthropologist David Stoll later uncovered evidence of inconsistencies within Menchu's story. Conservative cultural activists interpreted Stoll's research as discrediting Menchu's story. For example, David Horowitz blasted Menchu as a "liar" and further condemned "I, Rigoberta Menchu" as "one of the greatest hoaxes of the 20th century." Many derided such attacks on Rigoberta as politically motivated and intellectually dishonest.

I think that "I, Rigoberta Menchu" has, perhaps, been misunderstood and misused by people on both sides of the left/right political divide. And so, for that matter, has the work of David Stoll. While he is sharply critical of the book in his own work, "Rigoberta Menchu and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans," Stoll also corroborates parts of her story. In fact, at the end of his own book Stoll praises "I, Rigoberta Menchu" as a Guatemalan "national epic" (p. 283).

Because of all of the accusations and counter-accusations being thrown around by people with conflicting political and intellectual agendas, it is daunting to even approach "I, Rigoberta Menchu." Nevertheless, I agree with David Stoll that this book is an authentic national epic of Guatemala; I also believe that it is a book which deserves to be read.

I look at "I, Rigoberta Menchu" as a "biomythography." African-American author Audre Lorde used this term to describe her own autobiographical narrative, "Zami: A New Spelling of My Name." Think of a biomythography as a life story that combines fact with fictionalized, borrowed, or adapted materials in an attempt to arrive at greater truths. I don't mean to suggest that Menchu, or anyone, for that matter, should be excused for misrepresenting facts. But it seems to me that "I, Rigoberta Menchu" gives the reader clues that it is a "biomythography" from the first page of the first chapter: Rigoberta says of her story "I didn't learn it alone," and further stresses that "it's not only my life, it's also the testimony of my people."

And if you approach the book carefully, you will discover a powerful and fascinating text. It is impossible in the space of a short review to cover all of the highlights of "I, Rigoberta Menchu." But a few include her description of the interactions among the diverse ethnic groups of Guatemala, her account of Quiche Mayan religious beliefs and practices, and her descriptions of such everyday activities as making tortillas. Particularly fascinating is her account of how Guatemalan revolutionaries interpreted parts of the Bible in order to aid their struggle; at the end of Chapter XVII she describes the Bible as the "main weapon" of her comrades.

Yes, Rigoberta has a political agenda. But so did Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X; this does not diminish the value of their autobiographies as both literary texts and historical documents. My advice is to read both "I, Rigoberta Menchu" and David Stoll's biography of Menchu. Read commentaries on the controversy from all parts of the political spectrum. And read other texts about the violence in Guatemala and in other countries rocked by political strife and ethnic tension. And finally, draw your own conclusions about the book.

Many of those who criticize Ms. Menchu's work subscribe to the fallacy that "I, Rigoberta Menchu" is an autobiography. After David Stoll published "Rigoberta Menchu and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans," Ms. Menchu responded, "'Yo, Rigoberta Menchu' no fue una autobiografia, sino un testimonio." ("'I, Rigoberta Menchu was not an autobiography, but rather a testimony.") Marc Zimmerman, an expert on Guatemalan resistance literature, has stated that testimonial literature implicitly contains the possibility of "other voices." In essence, Ms. Menchu aimed to speak for her community rather than herself. The idea of the collective voice is a well-known characteristic of Mayan culture. There is also a level of common sense that eludes many of Ms. Menchu's critics. Assuming that the book is an autobiography, does it really matter that one of Ms. Menchu's brothers was actually shot by the army instead of burnt alive. This hairsplitting does not conceal the fact that the Guatemalan military committed such atrocities in the death of over 200,000 Guatemalans and the destruction of over 400 villages. "I, Rigoberta Menchu" played a pivotal role in bringing international attention to the plight of Guatemala, which, as Stoll himself acknowledges, few other people could have done. The real question raised by Stoll's book is not who died where and how, but does Rigoberta Menchu truly represent "all poor Guatemalans." To understand Guatemalan history in the early 1980s, I recommend Jennifer Schirmer's "The Guatemalan Military Project: A Violence Called Democracy" and Stoll's more persuasive work, "Between Two Armies in the Ixil Towns of Guatemala." "I, Rigoberta Menchu" has its faults but it is a superb introduction to the debate over recent Guatemalan history.

I read this book years ago and re-read it again recently. It is still one of my favorite books. Rigoberta Menchu suffered unbelievable atrocities and incredible losses and still lived to tell her courageous story through an interpreter. I think the book is phenomenal and I recommend it to anyone with a heart. It helps explain a lot about the Guatamalen people and their strife. It also is a timely book since the illegal immigration debate rages on in this country on a daily basis. It paints a vivid picture of the suffering of indigenous peoples and helps us to relate to their need to escape their countries in search of a better life. I dont know what David Stoll had to gain by writing a book that contradicted Menchu's powerful account. She states at the beginning of her book that her perspective is hers alone and that her memories may have been clouded by the trauma. It makes me crazy when people pick apart one tiny aspect of a book and then, throw the entire thing out as a sham. The same thing happened with the James Frey book, A million little pieces. People tended to ignore the overall strengths of the book and his basic message of surviving drug addiction over a few little insignificant details. This book is the same situation. The overall message and story of rigoberta menchu is so powerful and moving, it must be read, even if there is a fact or two that someone wants to contradict.

I read this book shortly before visiting Guatemala, and I have to say it made my travel experience alot richer. I felt more sensitized to the currents of racism and political struggle still present in the country, as well as to the pain of a people recovering from a horror in the not so distant past. Nearly every Guatemalan that I met had some powerful story of the genocide, and this book gave me a good background on the facts and politics behind the peasant struggle.

Though it has been criticized as being imbellished and realistically inaccurate, I think that it can still be used as a tool to learn about the native Quiche culture in past and present times. Their spiritual and political beliefs and their connections to the natural world are interwoven throughout the memoir. And most importantly, the horror of a major Latin American genocide that still scars the memories of peasants in the region today. Rigoberta was very matter of fact in sharing information about the torture and killing of her people in gruesome detail... so detailed that it was difficult to read at times, but nevertheless, essential in understanding the extent of the what happened to her people.

Whether you read this book as fact or historical fiction, I think it is a good read for anyone interested in Latin American history, politcal science, peasant cultures, or human rights. It is a story that will stick in your mind... and your heart.

It is incredible that such human suffering went on, and in many ways is still going on, just a couple of hours (by pane) away from where I live. Rigoberta Menchu's book, written as dictated by her, is sad and tells of horrible situations.

Guatemala is a beautiful country, the indigenous sill dress in their local garb, each unique to a particular village. Guatemala has been referred to as the most exotic country in the Western hemisphere.

A good friend of mine, a Guatemala Indian, told me about the efforts of the Indians to get help from the United States. They sought out various Native American tribes in the U.S., that to them was seeking help from America. From what he told, it never occured to the elders of the Guatemalan groups to approach anyone other than Native Americans. And they did not receive help, because help was not available. But had they approached the U.S. government, they most likely wouldn't have been helped either.

I have been in Guatemala so many times, I started to call it my second home. There is still a lot of oppression, and the indigenous still feel fearful of the police and the military. I have not been there in a couple of years and am yearning to return.

The last time, the police/military made great efforts to change their image. Instead of stopping trucks and harrassing the passengers, they handed out white carnations!

Menchu does not deal with the greatest problem that is keeping the indigenous in danger, that of language barrier. The Guatemala Indians speak over 20 local languages. The languages are so totally different, that communication is impossible. Though some books are written in the local languages, they cannot be read by the indigenous because they are illiterate. Division is a "great" tool to keep populations from binding together to fight a common evil. Spanish is the country's political language, but over 80% of the indigenous do not speak Spanish.

I have traveled into the villages, into the hills and mountains where customs as ancient as the peoples themselves still reign. All of them have experienced evil. Their story did not end with Menchu's book. It continues, and who knows how much longer it will continue.

(This is both a review and a response to Michael J. Mazza's book review located above).

I think the above Mazza review is pretty smart and well articulated and would like to make one further point. Rigoberta is Quiche Mayan which means part of what others see as inconsistency is just her faith in an old but thriving religion that others know little about. The Maya are a highly spiritual people. They behave in a way that even after living in Chiapas and Guatemala (both Mayan areas) for two years I cannot truly understand or anticipate. So when you say that she mixes fiction and reality to arrive at an even greater truth I think you're failing to realize the depths of her commitment to the spirit. She wouldn't say that any of the things you term "fictions?are fictions at all. Here's an example: almost all Quiche women wear huipils ?a traditional dress. To the non-Indian eye this looks like it is decorated with geometric patterns. To the Mayan eye they see the history of the world. This mindset is real. The history of the world is a cosmic history.

I see the problem with readings of "I, Rigoberta Menchu" an unfortunate and underestimated cultural misunderstanding. The term itself makes me quiver because of its recent overuse and thus lack of meaning. But I think the mindset of the average Mayan and the average American are virtually irreconcilable. This difference, I suggest, is part of the cause for gross misunderstanding the CIA had of the Mayan Indians. With all this talk we fail to keep in mind that the violence was real, there was a CIA-coup that installed a dictator.

Regardless of what you think about her integrity, this book is an essential read. It's a shame that such an vital tale has been hindered by the political talk around it. Politics, namely the CIA in the 50s, caused this problem in the first place. See How Holocausts Happen or Bitter Fruit for more information on this.

The Maya do not get the exposure or credit they deserve. The Maya give civilization many things that we take for granted including chocolate and the tomato. So let's open our ears a bit and pay attention to the way other people think before we judge them. With a little more sensitivity the world might be a bit more peaceful.

Anybody who is interested in better understanding the complex social relations between indiginous populations and descendants of the Spanish occupiers in central america should read this perspective about history and culture provided by Peace Nobel Price winner Rigoberta Menchu. Currently, in the 2011 elections, Ms. Menchu is running for political office in Guatemala and hopefully will receive sufficient votes in order to prevent a return of a right-wing and fascist government. Ms. Menchu's influence is particularly important as the healing of her people regarding the genocide, the massacres and persecutions has only just begun. Her status in Guatemala is as important as Nelson Mandela's was in South Africa. This book gives valuable insights into the much needed democratization of this central american country.

I truly regret not giving the book more stars. The civil war in Guatemala was among the bloodiest in history, and was instigated by the United States. I don't deny that but acknowledge it freely. The Maya indigenous have suffered misearably since we Europeans hit the shores of this hemisphere, also acknowledged. Indeed, over half of the indigenous perished from small pox, which is why we began to import Africans as slaves. (I do not, however, hold collective "Europeans" or their symbolic henchman, Columbus, responsible for all the world's evils. There's enough of us in all cultures to blame for those! What's more, as much as we affluent types whine about it, "Western" or "Eurocentric" (whatever that means) consumerism provides resources far more useful than laptops, cell phones and "natural" foods from which even the poor benefit!)

Further, the U.S. visibly collaborated in the process of the war, military "advisors," weapons, etc. And I know this because I was in Guatemala shortly after reading the book, during the civil war, and stopped by the Guatemalan army holding weapons I paid for.

However, despite all this, and despite my disagreement with many of David Stoll's conclusions in the book he wrote about Rigoberta's claims, much of what she said was simply untrue.

I hear excuses for her constantly. "She said, 'It's about the people...'," and countless other excuses for her disrespect for her real story. Is that what relativism and post-modernism has done? The truth is less important that an ideological point to make? And what does Rigoberta's lack of credibility do to that of others who've suffered more than she? That saddens me. And what if, say, George W. Bush were to tell stories about how he grew up poor in Texas, is, therefore, just another sample of a poor guy making it? Isn't that also writing "for the people?" And as credible...

I'm disturbed too that so many hyper-conservative ideologues have used Rigoberta's tales against her and against the people she ostensibly represents. Horowitz is a prime example, but others abound in these pages.

Oh, one must remember that the book itself was a recitation to the spouse of a French Marxist. So it starts from an ideological perspective right off, thereby, to me, losing credibility. And Rigoberta's having stated later that it's not her real story even ads to its incredibility.

I've met Rigoberta, indeed, am quite charmed by her. And my sympathy for "her people" is vast. I'm also well-read on, and deeply concerned about what went on--and is going on--in Guatemala. But that doesn't justify romanticising her story as that "of the people." Of the people the story probably is. So, then, let "the people" tell it, or at least don't attribute it to yourself.

The story is of tragedy and chaos in the Guatemalan civil war. Whether specifically true or not, all of the events of the book happened to someone at some point in that country. It's more a story of a diminishing race and civilisation being forced to come to grips with a modernized world. The reason it is so difficult to read is the double translation from Quechua to Spanish to English. Menchu also tends to jump around from topic to topic a lot. I think this is an important story, but essential to students of Latin American culture and society. It is also important for the study of human atrocity as well as a great foundation for the culture and practices of Latin American Indian societies.

When I read this book, I was disappointed with it. I thought that a lot of the power of the story was lost in translation, as is always the case with books in translation, especially from a romance language into a germanic one. However, I was willing to ignore this because finally one of my countrywomen had won a Nobel Prize for her work. A couple of years later, i read an article in the Washington Post stating that Ms. Menchu had "embellished" her story, adding extra drama. As if the Guatemalan tragedy needs drama to make it real and poignant. And indeed, it was true. Ms. Menchu was asked by many to give back her Nobel prize. I don't remember if she did. If anyone knows whether Ms. Menchu gave back her prize, do tell. The book itself is boring and plodding. It did not communicate with the reader the way good books do. This is non-fiction that reads like the worst fiction.