Strikingly, some motivations to keep using the book rest upon its critics--some "right wing" critics questioned it, so therefore it must continue to be taught. Such a reaction is knee-jerk by definition. Other defenders admit they don't care if "the events described actually happened" because there's a "larger truth" than mere documentary truth. Indeed there is...this larger truth is called "propaganda" or "demagoguery" or "myth", and such "larger truths" are always fervently held by proponents, even if they are fictions. One would hope that the facts themselves--and there are many facts available for anyone who bothers to look--are powerful enough. Guatemala indeed has a sordid bloody history, and the United States has had a powerful proxy hand in it. For example, the Reagan administration lent support to Guatemalan General Gramajo, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands in the Guatemalan highlands. These are facts, readily available on the documentary record. Perhaps such facts are not as exciting as a suspect autobiography by Rigoberta Menchú. Those who prefer "larger truths" to mere facts are surely a great comfort to propagandists and demagogues around the world, who will rest easier knowing that common-sensical skepticism is often sorely lacking amongst the intelligensia.
JOIN THE DEBATE Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity.
| ||||||||
previous response
Copyright © 1999 by The Chronicle of Higher Education