While reading the second half of I, Rigoberta Menchú was just as interesting as the first (and I’m not Andrew, so I mean that sincerely), what I am more interested in is how it pertains to wider conversations of the book’s commentary on Menchú’s agency in her testimonial. In class, we talked about whether or not Burgos’ introduction properly articulates the dynamic between herself and Menchú, and the possibility of Menchú’s playing up her Indigeneity for Burgos. Obviously, one way she does this is through her clothing, and it can be argued that it’s furthered in her keeping of certain secrets.

However, after watching the two lecture videos and learning more about Stoll’s criticism of I, Rigoberta Menchú, lots of more questions pop up. The first of which assumes sincerity on Menchú’s behalf. If truly, this was her story, and she kept out certain conversations for the peace of her community, that means that she held up her half of representing her community while not opening themselves to further hurt from colonial communities. If so, she must have expected the doubt that then followed (from scholars like Stoll), and may have been prepared to use Burgos as a patsy to place the blame on.

Conversely, if Stoll’s criticisms are perfectly valid, it is possible that Menchú was not entirely telling the truth, and that her agency was understated in the original brief look of the book. It opens up further questions: how much might she have fabricated that Stoll didn’t catch? What was the purpose of these fabrications?

When talking about secrets, she impresses that it is an effect of the community traditions and practices as well as experiences with colonial acts of theft. Not included in this is the conversation of trickster behaviour, which can be commonly found in many international Indigenous communities.
By keeping secrets, she may have found it more entertaining or amusing to then tell tall tales, unbeknownst to Burgos (who had very little knowledge of Guatemala). A question remains: how does this affect the general reader? The average reader is probably in a similar position to Burgos, and as Menchú was able to fool Burgos, it follows that it would then be assumed to be truthful testimonio.

There’s another nuance: where did Menchú draw the line between testimonio as truth and pseudo-testimonio (as John Beverly calls it)? These questions will probably forever go unanswered, but examining them helps us as an audience read more critically into the lines of Menchú/Burgos’ conversation.

Also apologies if the title is not actually grammatically correct, I took one term of SPAN 101 and did 200 days on Duolingo, so my credentials aren’t exactly buffed.