Menchu's Narrative

The Impact of Rigoberta Menchu

The Guatemalan civil war lasted from 1960 to 1996 - there was extreme violence, human rights abuses and economic devastation. This conflict not only rearranged the political landscape of the country, but left deep psychological wounds on the Guatemalan people. The Guatemalan government, led by General Efraín Montt, followed a scorched earth policy against the indigenous Mayan population and the leftists. Between 1981 and 1982, the most extreme violence shocked the nation. In the autobiography, I, Rigoberta Menchú, Menchú discusses her life as a twenty-three year old indigenous woman caught in the middle of the horrific atrocities occurring all around her. She discusses how a lifetime of oppression as a poor Indian peasant brought about her political awakening and struggle against oppression. This struggle for freedom and respect led to the torture and murder of her family members and community. Her stories are poignant and terrifying, and bring a humanity to the suffering that had been largely ignored in the rest of the world. Her book sparked international outrage, and played a crucial role in raising awareness of the to the conflict that ultimately led to a peace treaty. In 1992, she received the Nobel Peace Price for her role in shedding light on the struggles of the Mayan people, and galvanized international support for indigenous people across the world.

Stoll's Critique

Historians play a key role in putting events like the Guatemalan Civil War into context - they look at the causes, historical figures and major events to find patterns in the tides of history. They weave together individual narratives with the broader tapestry of political events, providing a new perspective that enriches our understanding of historical complexities and human experiences. A new analysis, Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans, by historian and anthropologist David Stoll uncovers glaring inaccuracies and exaggerations of atrocities in her memoirs. Stoll takes a controversial stand by directly attacking such a powerful narrative (and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize), especially as he is an outsider to the Guatemalan Civil War. The evidence he provides is powerful and diligently researched - the brother that she claims to have been executed is alive and well in Guatemala, towns that she referenced as massacred were easily found (with no recollection of the events she wrote about), and the narrative about her family’s ancestral land being seized by the government was instead a dispute with a neighboring village. Rigoberta Menchú's narrative brings the tragic events of the Guatemalan Civil War into focus; however, the inaccuracies in her memoir challenge us to critically assess how we respond to personal narratives and use them for historical context.

It is very difficult to accurately represent what happened in history from a single story, no matter how well this story is told. In the movie Saving Private Ryan, there is a very powerful scene about the storming of Omaha beach during D-Day. Director Steven Spielberg worked with experts and parsed through hundreds of interviews to understand the event in myriad ways. They researched the same event from the perspective of the officers, the boat operators, the infantryman, even the German defenders. No two experiences were exactly the same. This diversity in viewpoints allowed Spielberg to create a scene with an historical accuracy lauded for its realism by participants. Stoll follows a similar path in his research - he travels through Guatemala, interviews hundreds of participants that experienced the Guatemalan civil war, and worked to ensure impartiality by avoiding leading questions.

Stoll builds his case against Menchú by interviewing other villagers that were also close to the action. In perhaps the most horrifying part of her memoir, Menchú discusses the execution of several of her fellow villagers at the hands of soldiers by torture and immolation. After talking to an elder named Domingo and seven other villagers in the village that this supposedly occurred, none of them could remember this event and were convinced that this was either a false story or happened elsewhere. In another case, he tracked down Menchú’s family members that were supposedly executed that were alive and well - including a brother that received a forgettable execution in the book. Stoll’s research is part of a larger academic debate looking at the Guatemalan Civil War. In addition, he makes a point to ensure that the readers know that atrocities were undeniably committed, and that the indigenous community did face, and continues to face, hardship.

Stoll concludes, “It is time to face the fact that guerrilla strategies are far more likely to kill off the left than build it.” This is a very controversial statement, and is directed only at a specific country during a specific time. Looking throughout history, guerrilla warfare is often the only way a lesser power can achieve their objectives against a greater enemy. This is a very shortsighted quote, and while perhaps in many cases the guerrilla strategies fail, they are also able to eventually succeed, despite the tremendous losses. Stoll must be careful of making broad generalizations with narrow examples. A guerrilla strategy with the strong support of the people, such as in Vietnam, is often the most successful way to win a conflict. Stoll is right to address exaggerations of Manchú’s work, but appears to be going beyond the scope of what he uncovered to address the limitations of guerrilla warfare. Ultimately, conflict is deadly and violent, guerrilla warfare sometimes works and sometimes it doesn’t.

Stoll writes “Rigoberta…with a wider range of experiences than she actually had, is not a very serious problem.” This is less about exaggerations in a single autobiography, but how falsifications could be used for propaganda on both sides to perpetuate conflict. Menchú never mentioned anything negative about the guerrillas, but focused only on the atrocities committed by the army. “Instead of being popular heroes, the guerrillas were, like soldiers, people with guns who brought suffering in their wake.” Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara’s major principle for guerrilla warfare is that the fighters must have the support of the people - in Guatemala, this was not necessarily the case. In interviews with villagers across the country, the majority wanted to live in peace, with no affinity towards either the government or the guerillas. Yet, like so many other conflicts throughout history, they were forced to choose sides as a matter of survival.

Did Manchú’s book help bring about the end of the conflict, or perpetuate a civil war that very few wanted? Manchú’s proponents argue that her book created an international outcry that resulted in a faster resolution with the peace process. Stoll argues the latter, as the guerrillas received international attention, funding and moral support to continue the fight. Thousands of civilians and combatants died as the this conflict was extended beyond it’s natural culmination. In his view, Menchu’s book sustained a dying cause and extended the suffering of the Guatemalan people. Also, what are the ethical considerations of using a book with significant falsehoods for political benefit? Narratives contribute to the collective experience, but this is an example where the exagerated testimony of a single person had undue influence on a violent and complex event. One could argue that the ends justify the means, but this argument quickly becomes untenable and rife for propaganda and misdirection.

Conclusion

Menchú’s book lessens the experience that the Guatemalans went through in the civil war. It is well known that thousands of people died, but exaggerating what would typically be a horrific story in itself diminishes the credibility of both herself and Guatemalan society. Misha Defonseca wrote a best-selling book called Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years. She writes about her time hiding from the Nazis, traveling across Belgium and Germany to find refuge, living off of stolen food scraps and being adopted by a pack of wolves. It turns out that she took elements of truth to fabricate this story, and the book is used by holocausts deniers as a prime example of exaggerations about events in conflict. Personal narratives during conflict are complicated - memories are affected by emotion, and anger and sorrow have a tendency to either morph reality. Menchú’s exaggerations have a similar effect, compromising the experience of the Guatemalan’s during the civil war and giving the perpetuators of the conflict a useful tool to deny responsibility and avoid restitution. Manchú had a story to write, but exaggerations put the innocent into jeopardy.