Why Write an Exposé of Rigoberta Menchú?

Abstract

In the introduction, where the most casual reader could not miss it, David Stoll says of Rigoberta Menchu's (Burgos-Debray, 1984) book, There is no doubt about [her] most important points: that dictatorship massacred thousands of indigenous peasants, that the victims included half of Rigoberta's immediate family, that she fled to Mexico to save her life, and that she joined revolutionary movement to liberate her country (1998: vii). She is only misleading or wrong about the situation of her family and village life before the war (1998: vii) and about having witnessed some of the incidents she describes. He adds, Most of the pressure that forced the army and the government to negotiate [with the guerrillas, leading to peace accord at the end of 1996] came from abroad, and it was generated by human rights imagery (1998: 8) in which Rigoberta's book played an extremely important role (1998: 11). After these concessions, he asks, If Rigoberta is fundamentally right about what the army did, if her story expresses larger truth about the violence, why dissect personal account that is inevitably selective? (1998: viv). He answers his question with the following four points: First, the catastrophes that befell Rigoberta's family, her village, and other indigenous villages in western Guatemala were brought on by the revolutionary guerrillas as much as by the army. In the particular case of Rigoberta's village, Rigoberta's father, Vicente, appears to have invited the guerrillas there-or at least to have received them warmly.' Hence the targeting of his family by the army was quite natural. In the case of Vicente Menchu's death in conflagration at the Spanish embassy, it may be that the victims (who were protesting army murders of their relatives) immolated themselves.2 More generally, guerrillas pursue a high-risk strategy that usually ends in defeat and disillusion, after sacrificing peasants to romantic images of