Reading the shortest text that we have been assigned for this course, I cannot help but feel against its brevity that it was one of the most impactful. It tells a story from an unlikely origin, owing to the author’s differences in class and language compared to her readers. In this sense, I am reminded of several other works of literature written by minorities in the 18th century and which have since found a surging popularity in contemporary academia—from the works of Phillis Wheatley, utilising the elevated poetic language of modern society to question the morality of the Atlantic slave trade to the narrative of the former slave turned “freeman” Olaudah Equiano. Both authors utilise “white” language to liberate themselves through the model of the Enlightenment. For these similarities, the themes which runs throughout I, Rigoberta Menchu mentioned in the foreword that “Rigoberta learned the language of her oppressors in order to use it against them”  and “[w]ords are her only weapons”  strike me as especially powerful in the context of the postcolonial literatures (xxi, xxi). 

    Latin America provides an interesting lens to view the reach of colonialism and the differing ways it affected its inhabitants. Comparing this work to others I’ve studied, I noticed some key similarities, the first of which comes in the form of the author providing background as a way to humanise the “other,” thereby building sympathy with her white audience. From there Rigoberta goes on to describe her family and the hardships they must endure often in part due to their oppressors. 

    There is often an element of real world tragedy to connect to the oppressor as a means of change; this is represented in the death of Rigoberta’s brothers Felipe and Nicola, the first of which dies as a result of the oppressors spraying the coffee with pesticides wherein the author shares “my brother couldn’t stand the fumes and died of intoxication” (38). Additionally, the intimate nature of the medium of autobiography or account allows the distant reader to glimpse into a life beyond their own, thereby breaking down racial and class barriers which continue to oppress the “other.” Yet language can be beneficial as much as it can be a detriment. In the author’s encounter with those from different Guatemalan ethnic groups, she finds that “linguistic barriers prevent any dialogue between us Indians, between ourselves” (40). In my view, this mirrors the author’s dogged attempts to learn English as a means of writing as a story which is ubiquitous in its message, and her use of the captor’s language to introduce radical change. 

My question for the class is in what ways does the language of the autobiography articulate, but also hold captive, the stories authors try to tell? S