The second half of I, Rigoberta Menchú was (somehow) more brutal as the first. As Rigoberta explains how she became actively involved in guerrilla groups and resistance movements to protect her community, she is met over and over again with the deaths of members of her community, her compañeros and her family members. I was surprised at the level of detail with which she describes her involvement in the deaths, kidnapping, and/or capture of soldiers. It seemed to me that a certain level of death was normalized in the first half (particularly the way she described children dying), and that even in personal tragedies (the death of her brother on the finca), it was understood as a part of life.
I don’t feel like this is what she is saying when she talks about death in the second part of the novel. The deaths in the second half of the novel, especially the deaths of her father, mother, and brother, are all due to political injustice and the extraordinarily brutal treatment of the army during the Guatemalan Civil War. I thought that the way this was presented in the book mirrored how she was becoming more aware of the worsening situation facing the Indigenous community in Guatemala (and elsewhere in North, Central, and South America). The deaths of her siblings in the first half, are, of course, still tied to this. (Although, this tie seemed a retroactive realization rather than one she understood at the time- understandable as she was a child.) She talks about the deaths in the second half differently, however. I think this is because she was younger when they occur and her relationship to family and authority changes throughout the years. I thought it was also significant that the chapter on death and customs around death came after the death of her parents, and that the community is always present and prioritized. Last week, I talked about how I felt that she saw these earlier deaths with anger; this week, I think we see how that anger crystallizes and spurs action.
In last week’s class, we touched on the idea of whether or not parts of this story are exaggerated or false. I do not know if I formed a strong opinion last class. After reading this, I don’t think I care whether or not these things happened to her specifically, the fact is that they were happening, and in many places still are, to all kinds of people. In situations like this, does absolute personal truth matter more than getting the world to pay attention? Than getting people the help they need? I don’t think many of us would say that the specifics of what happened or how it happened matter more.
Hi there!
I totally agree, the novel shows how as Rigoberta ages her convictions become stronger. Growing up she has a lot of confusion about why she is being treated differently, but after the persecution of her family she has a very different outlook.
The exploration of death and violence in the second half of Rigoberta Menchú’s narrative indeed presents a stark contrast to the earlier parts of the book. The shift from personal tragedies to political injustices reflects not only Menchú’s growing awareness of the systemic issues facing indigenous communities but also highlights the brutal reality of the Guatemalan Civil War.
Your observation about the evolving portrayal of death in the narrative, particularly how it reflects Menchú’s changing relationship with family and authority as she grows older, is insightful. The deaths in the second half of the book are not only politically motivated but also seem to galvanize Menchú into action, crystallizing her anger into a driving force for resistance and activism.