Rigoberta Menchú: Testimonio Vs. Controversy Analysis

590 Words2 Pages

Rigoberta Menchú: Testimonio vs. Controversy Rigoberta Menchú was given the opportunity to tell the story of her and her people during her exile from Guatemala. In January 1982 Menchú spent a week in anthropologist Elisabeth Burgos-Debray’s house recording her story in Spanish, a language that she had only been speaking for three years at the time. This book has been studied, written about and questioned many times since being published. The questioning is of its truthfulness. Due to the many controversies anthropologist David Stoll wrote I, Rigoberta Menchú and the History of all the Guatemalan Poor, suggesting that the story may be false. Stoll is not the only one. Rigoberta Menchú is a young Guatemalan Quiché Indian woman who represented the poor population of her country and their struggle through testimony. Her story could be …show more content…

Overall this genre of conversational narrative is useful to those who need to “reconstruct and make sense of actual and possible life experiences” (7). There are pieces to a story that may not come as clear to a person who has been through traumatic situations, and storytelling is used to help not only with getting the story straight, but for healing as well. From a different perspective, Rigoberta Menchú’s testimony could be given the sub-genre label of “war story”. According to author Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, there are specific things a war story is and is not. Menchú carries on in gut-wrenching detail at certain parts of her testimony, one of which includes a brother’s death. “As a first rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromised allegiance to obscenity and evil” (69), says O’Brien, validating the truthfulness of Menchú’s

More about Rigoberta Menchú: Testimonio Vs. Controversy Analysis

Open Document