I am one of the many North Americans who traveled to Central America in the mid 80's to learn more about political conditions in those countries. I have a copy of Rigoberta Menchú's book along with other writings of that time period from El Salvador and Nicaragua. I also was actively involved in the Sanctuary movement when Central Americans were fleeing to the United States. I heard many stories during that time with some overlap of events recalled and seemingly obvious attempts to elicit sympathies mixed with facts of actual oppression. I learned to note the similarities, yet not discount the thread of common truths. I believe that this book should continue to be used as an excellent example of the time period and its conditions. At the same time I also believe it should be viewed as oral history rather than literal fact. Students should be taught to consider the messages of the books they read as a means of understanding the human condition. We do not teach the writings of the Bible as literal documents; neither do we throw away the importance of its message. I, Rigoberta Menchú is not the Bible, but it is an example of stories from the history of humanity that is worth knowing.
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