As a long-term anthropological researcher of the very part of Guatemala discussed in her book, I have known for a long time there were fibs and distortions and fabrications--not simply in the who did what when, but in other things that run deeper, for example her position in terms of the great social split between reform Catholics (Accion Catolica, a variety of Liberation Theology, into which she was raised, and for which her father was a leader) and the traditional "costumbristas" who for the most part opposed both the army and the rebels. In the book she attempts to claim both the rebel side and the traditional one, the latter she misrepresents (e.g. ten holy days in place of twenty in the sacred calendar) a position which in effect silences the difference and hides the fact that many, many Mayas were not supporters of the EGP or CUC, unlike the way many non-indigenous people have represented the situation. While this distortion of the truth has always bothered me, especially in the way that it gave legitimacy to both the rebels and the army, the first because they were seen as much more representative than they were, and the second because it justified to them and the Right all the military killings (165,000 by my count, in the Highlands alone) since the Maya were depicted as largely rebel supporters, at the same time I consistently discouraged Dr.Stoll from continuing with his line of inquiry because to me it seemed less important than the negative political impact of any discrediting. I would very much defend the veracity of his work at the same time as decrying its political timing and in a certain sense, its innocence. I fear that this discrediting will be used by those who would love to play down the genocidal killings and the U.S. involvement in them, something the U.S. still has not squarely faced, let alone Guatemala. I spend years trying to convince people of the killings when they were happening, with nowhere near the attention this controversy is getting--and of course killings do continue, if on a much smaller scale, and what is more the truth about those massive killings of the past are still a battle to expose. There are thousands more testimonies waiting to be recorded and published from Mayas with no particular political position to promote, but they are not likely to be heard since their positions have no occidental intellectual sponsors, and their truths do not fit so well into the silencing Left-Right dualism that has been so well imposed upon the events. The secret that most Maya never were involved willingly in the so-called "war", and that they were massacred in many areas en masse by the Right because the military erroneously believed the Left's triumphalist propaganda, that is a secret that will never get press. I still have always had great respect for Ms. Menchú for doing so much to get the word out about the horror of the "time of the killings" and the U.S. role, even with all her own errors and her biases and contradictions. Let us hope that this dialogue moves U.S. scholars toward a deeper understanding of Guatemala and the social complexities of this latest phase of the Conquista, and does not degenerate into blind support, rejection, or other suspect emotions regarding Stoll or Menchú.
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