Talk:Rigoberta Menchú

is it true that her biography is a hoax?

See: Journalism fraud. –Hajor

I think the allegations of fraud are too important to be left on another page, there should be more about it on the main page. My main problem is this sentence "Detractors claim that the book contains many fabrications", the claims are true the book is false, so I have taken out the sentence. I have done a google search and have found nothing about Pres. Clinton supposed apology the only thing I found was this quote "United States . . . support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression . . . was wrong." unless someone can find a link to an actual apology the remarks do not belong on the page.

stevenscollege

The US support for military regimes in Guatemala which violated human rights has been widely proven, go read ther other articles about Guatemalean history.

______________________________________

It MUST be remembered that in helping Central American governments to destroy Moscow's proxies, we were also defending ourselves. Clearly a Red Central American would have meant a Red Mexico. For the consequences of what that would have meant I direct you to John Milius' excellent movie Red Dawn (the fact that Lib-Lefties hate it so much is proof of how closely it hits the mark).

In the 90s, Guatemalan government created something similar to South African's "Truth and Reconciliation" commission. It reached conclusions that both sides, the American-backed government trying to keep the country from becoming another Leninist hell-hole and the Moscow-supplied and supported terrorists were both guilty of atrocities. Given the fact that communists murdered 100,000,000 people--a conservative estimate--in the 20th century alone (and are torturing and killing people are you read this) is proof enough that the communists are by far the guiltier party.

Let me put it this way, any group that took aid from Hitler (say Franco's regime) is still execrated, often mindlessly, by the Left. If that's the standard, then any group that took aid from the Leninist-Stalinist Politburo is just as worthy of execration. PainMan 08:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

100,000,000 people? Where did you get that crap? I thought the first communist country was established in 1917. Got their names, like how the Jew have all the id of those killed in the Holocaust? And does that justify what you Americans have done to fight communism? Some of your so-called 'hellholes' are much exaggerated by your propaganda machine, clearly your head is still in the 1960's. In fact life in countries such as Cuba and China are nowhere near your so called Leninist hellholes.

I'd love to live in a country where more than a third of the population will never use a toothbrush (China). Or a country where I'm not free to live, and even when I attempt to leave peacefully, I'm executed a week later (Cuba). One hundred million is probably high, but not too far from the mark. The Soviet Union and China combined have about 60 million deaths to their names. GreatGatsby 20:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny from someone who never visited such countries. In China (where toothbrushes were invented), these are some of the cheapest commodities. and I don't believe you have lived in Cuba long enough to experience the BS you're saying. Your figures are mostly pull your hard-right ass.--PatCheng 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And I love the film 'Red Dawn', because it justifies resistence to protect your country from invaders, whatever their so called cause, much like the Iraqi resistence.

I find it extremely interesting, and might I add very satisfying to see the hard left that once shilled for and made excuses for the Soviets, now doing the same for Islamic fundamentalists. As for the US going to far to stop the spread of communism, ask yourself this, would you have rather lived in West Germany or East Germany during the cold war? Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea today? Would you rather live in China or Taiwan? TDC 13:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather live under communism than under you Americofascist bastards.--PatCheng 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Iraqi resistence that is made up of almost exclusively of non-nationals? GreatGatsby 20:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

He's refering to Iraqi nationalists, not al-Qaeda Jihadists.--PatCheng 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

China. Have you seen the growth rates there? But I'm no communist. I just wish Honduras had such growth rates, as there would be fortunes to be made, SqueakBox 14:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

They are still quite a ways from Taiwan in lving standards, and you could not edit Wikipedia from behind the Great Firewall of China. TDC 21:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, comparing a small island with millions of people to the 3rd largest country with billions of people? I've edited from mainland China just to counter your Americofascist crap.--PatCheng 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

(Edit: Originally directed to PainMan, but TDC and Squeakbox added comments in between)That's one interesting interpretation, however I don't think, if far-leftists had taken power in a Central American country, that they would have turned so dictatorial had it not been for disturbances coming from the exterior. You've got to agree that, for example, in Cuba, things like the embargo and the Bay of Pigs are what made Castro more paranoid and his regime more hardline.

BTW, the 100 million deaths is not a conservative estimate by any means. It came up in the Black book of communism, which was a collection of many articles, directed by Stéphane Courtois I think. He himself came up with that number but several people dispute it, including many who contributed to the book. Besides, it can be argued that several of these deaths are the result mostly of totalitarism, which in those specific cases took the form of a communist government, or one that claimed to be communist. And sometimes it was done by simply insane people. I mean come on, can we really call, say, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-Il communists? They're just crazy, that's what I say. Anyway, back to the topic, Rigoberta Menchu, err, what does she have to do with any of this? She might have been a marxist, but certainly not stalinist.

She may not be a Stalinist, bus she sure is a lying sack of shit. TDC 00:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sack of shit I don't know, there's lots of worse people out there, and she didn't harm anybody, but I think everybody were already agreeing she was a liar, that's not an issue.

True, there are worse liars out there, but few won Nobel prizes for their lies. TDC 16:26, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Spillingg crap doesn't cover the fact that most of her critics are from the United States, hard-right Americofascists--PatCheng 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought she was a capitalist (see latest entry). She certainly backed Berger and opposed FRG's pro Indian rob the rich to give to the (FRG supporting) poor, SqueakBox 17:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Something tells me she is most definitely not a capitalist. TDC 13:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

The following letter--from the NY Times--is quoted under the Fair Use provisions of US Law:

To the Editor:

The Nobel committee gave Rigoberta Menchu the peace prize because she supposedly speaks for all the Indians of the American continent (news item, Dec. 18). Nonsense. Ms. Menchu, a Marxist ideologue, not only didn't even speak for most Indians in her own country, as suggested in your Dec. 15 front-page article, she supported the Sandinistas' [genocidal] repression of the Miskito and other Indians of Nicaragua in the early 1980's.

It is no surprise the Nobel committee will not revoke her prize, for much of this was known -- though now in greater detail -- before the prize was awarded. That's because Ms. Menchu fit the committee's political agenda, and it just hoped that no one would ever catch it up in such detail. A touch of justice has prevailed.

WILLIAM RATLIFF Stanford, Calif., Dec. 18, 1998

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Published: 12 - 20 - 1998 , Late Edition - Final , Section 4 , Column 4 , Page 12

NYTimes link

*Peace Prize Winner Admits Discrepancies

( By The Associated Press ) 244 words Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 12 , Column 1

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 244 WORDS - A Nobel Peace Prize winner conceded yesterday that she mixed the testimony of other victims of Guatemala's civil war with her own life story in her account, I, Rigoberta ... Scholars have questioned the accuracy of some episodes described in the book, published in 1983...

NYTimes link

PainMan 01:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect sources

I'm the anthropologist quoted -with some significant errors- in "Controversies about her autobiography," which I'm about to try to correct. Rigoberta Menchú's life story is not a hoax or fraud because she lost both her parents, two brothers, a sister-in-law and three nieces and nephews to the Guatemalan security forces. Wikipedia is a fascinating concept, but like the majority of journalism it is no substitute for going to actual sources. The sources in this case would include Rigoberta's 1983 life-story, my Rigoberta Memchu and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans (1999), and perhaps the Arturo Arias-edited collection The Rigoberta Menchu Controversy (2001).

Do be aware of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. You can put your own research here as long as it has been published elsewhere. Go for it, SqueakBox 19:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are David Stoll, please explain the following discrepancies in your additions.

• Unfortunately, his success led to a never-ending dispute with his wife's relatives, in the Tum family, who claimed some of the same land.

• The reason is that she in fact lost both her parents, two brothers, a sister-in-law and three nieces and nephews to the Guatemalan security forces.

It was my understanding that the father was killed by his relatives in a land dispute. TDC 16:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant material

And I putting it right back Gamaliel. How dare you appoint yourself censor?? If we aren't free to discuss what we like, what's the point of a discussion page? It's entierly natural that other topics will be drawn in. I don't care if you are one these self-important twits who call themselves moderators, or whatever. PainMan 22:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only that but lies and inaccuracies and Leftist propaganda has been allowed to sit here for months. It's only a problem when a conservative American starts hitting back? Methinks thou art showing thy true color, Gamy, baby. PainMan 22:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Menchu. Please keep the discussion on track, SqueakBox 22:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not step in sooner, but that is not an excuse for prolonging an entirely irrelevant debate. This page is not for ideological debates and I have once again removed irrelevant material. Gamaliel 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, don't do it, as I tell my six yr old. I have a serious problem with you, Gamaliel. You showing a blatant , and totaly inexplicable and indefensible, personal animus against me--obviously because I don't share your ideology. Whenever you deigned to look at this page is totally irrelevant. Left-wing propaganda was allowed to go unanswered until I did so. And, as soon as I do, you feel you have to bring self-important presence to make sure a conservative angle isn't present. Your basic position is obvious. AS is your juvenile attitude toward me. Whatever your issues are, keep them away from me. I have no interest in the junior high war you wish to wage. But I don't back down and I don't give in first--ever. So, to quote the song, "Don't go away mad, just go away."

Again, I demand an answer to the question you are for some reason refusing to answer? If free discussion isn't allow on a discussion page what is it here for?

And there's a second question you haven't answered. Which isn't odd since you refuse to answer any of my question. Do you have somesort of official status? If so, I wish to file a complaint against you.

And I will continue to repost the article that is accurate and faithful to the truth. If the truth hurts your feelings, history and I personally don't care.

And, it's just that simple.

PainMan 04:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said below I think this article has big problems but they are not of an ideological nature. PainMan's contribution contained very very angrey point of view which clearly is not acceptable here, nor is discussion about whether the commun ists were right or wrong except as it impinges on this article. What we need is more content and then to present thatr content with all relevant strands of opinion, SqueakBox 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article did have problems of ideological nature. I corrected them with sourced, accessible material. PainMan 04:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Squeakbox, What we need is more content and then to present thatr [sic] content [sic]with all relevant strands of opinion... Though badly written, I agree with your point here. It's this Gamaliel individual who's appointed himself guardian of communist revisionism. Clearly, this individual is also out harrass and annoy me(mostly I giggle) for personal issues of his or her own--all in a tone of psuedo-Olympian detachment. It doesn't wash.

I used only facts. I sourced my facts than any one can check if they like. If articles that are based on publically available sources than anyone can check are going to be censored, what is the point of this whole "project"? So, only self-appointed Communist apologists are allowed to judge what goes in the bio of Communist stooge? Wrong answer, sir/ma'am. Wrong answer. E.g. descrbing Mein Kampf as an intellectual shoddy, badly written piece of propaganda would not be POV it would be the absolute truth. Truth doesn't appear to carry much weight around here. And if truth is going to be censored on wikipedia I am going to become so annoying eyes will water. PainMan 04:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take your trash to "Free"Republic

Poor article

The article explains nothing about how she got to be famous. To be honset the lack of info is baffling, SqueakBox 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you reading the same article the rest of us are? It explains her work with the UN; her, largely falsified, autobiography and her being awarded the Nobel Peace prize because of sad book. What else could possibly be needed to explain her notoriety? As a darling of the soft-on-communism crowd, she needs to be exposed for what she is: a liar and a propagandist for Soviet aggression and genocide.

Unfortunately, you're going to have to explain what "honset" is to me first. But it is critically relevant to this person's bio that she lied her way to the Nobel Peace Prize (which far more often goes to the enemies of freedom than it does to champions of democracy; e.g. awarding it to Yasser Arafat while this murder was actively killing Jews? The Nobel Prize is a joke.) That this Menchu person is a liar is just teensy weensy bit important to mention, don't you think? The article on Limburgh could not leave out his sympathy with Nazism and be accurate, could it? (Knowing wikipedia, I'd probably better check). Frankly this lying supporter of communist tyranny doesn't deserve much more space than she gets. The only important thing about her is that she was awarded the Nobel Prize on the basis of lies and that (HUGE surprise!) the Nobel Committee refuses to revoke it and demand she return the $1M plus prize money that goes with it. It's the same issue as with Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize. He actively helped Stalin cover up the murders of twenty million plus people yet the NY Times refuses to return the award and the Pultizer committee refuses to revoke it. If Duranty had performed similar services for Hitler or Mussolini, the prize would have been jerked along time ago. If Menchu had been supportive of the struggle against Communist aggression, you can bet her prize would have been revoked in a heart beat. Those facts must be included so that persons of intelligence can draw the proper inferences. PainMan 04:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why unfortunately? You fail to explain why you delete the information that the book was ghostwritten by Elizabeth Burgos, to replace it with a comp[letely false fact that the book is a work of fiction,. I have the book in the original Spanish so let me assure you it was ghost written by her and it has never been published as a wotrk of fiction. Looks like simple vandalsim to me? What have you to say in your defence? Actually for Guatemalans she is an important person. Are you disparaging Guatemalans. Wikipedia is not a launch pad for your attacks or a forum for your misinformation. Please keep on track, SqueakBox 14:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

HEM

• 00:49, 3 December 2005 TDC (rv)
• 00:37, 3 December 2005 Ruy Lopez (stalking? Who started the stalking today of who?)
• 00:26, 3 December 2005 TDC (rv to 11/23 version of Gamaliel, I would appreciate it if Ruy Lopez stoped stalking me)
• 3 December 2005 Ruy Lopez (rv)
• 20:14, 2 December 2005 TDC (rv to 11/23 version of Gamaliel, no explanation for large removal of material)

This little revert war is now over and people will kindly come here and resolve their differences by discussing, is it not ? Rama 23:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a revert war, Its Ruy Lopez's petty way of getting back at me for RV his contributions over at Khmer Rouge, which I might add has been RV's by every other editor (at least a dozen) for over a year. TDC 23:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, this has to stop. Either there is a genuine question that people want to address, which if of course encouraged as long as it takes place on the talk page first, or it is something else, which will stop one way or another. This is, of course, applicable to everybody. Rama 23:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This material was removed without discussion by Painman, I put it back in because it has been in the article for several months with no objection. Lopez comes by and retaliates by RV'n. TDC 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you reverted my new additions yesterday. Please explain in specific detail why you reverted my additions? I had found the article frankly baffling, added new sourceable and valuable material and it appears to have been reverted with the only explanation being some rambling comment about the Khmer Rouge, SqueakBox 23:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That was unintentional. TDC 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please be more careful in future and don't revert the edits of a number of editors without checking the edits of every editor. That is just going to create problems. I too had removed some blatant PainMan stuff but hadn't reverted the stuff he removed because I had not realised fuly what he had done and just edited afresh. My edits do make the article much better and give context to the later stuff, SqueakBox 23:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're dead wrong, Squeaky. My original reverts are going back in complete form.

And, it's just that simple.

PainMan 04:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I see someone else has already reverted you. And with edits that remove good info while inserting the opinions of one individual I am not surprised, SqueakBox 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Returning inappropriately removed material

Menchu is an admitted liar and a Marxian propagandist. She would have been right at home in the Lubyanka before 1991. Even the New York Times published articles about Menchu's fabrications and they still refuse to admit that their man in Moscow in the 30s willingly helped Stalin conceal the murders of more than 20 million people! She admitted her lies in an AP story found in the New York Times archives.*

Removed for inappropriate reason. Returning it. It contains material used in the article. I have every right to put it on the Discussion page. Apparently, the spirit of the First Amendment isn't welcome here.

The equivication in the article is simply unacceptable. Therefore I have edited it to present the factual picture. One has either lied or one has told the truth about a given set of facts. Claiming, as some Communist apologists and supporters of the Moscow-led terrorist campaign against the Guatemalan government do, that "facts" are irrelevant simply reveals the Left's utter contempt for the truth.

The following letter--from the NY Times--is quoted under the Fair Use provisions of US Law:

To the Editor:

The Nobel committee gave Rigoberta Menchu the peace prize because she supposedly speaks for all the Indians of the American continent (news item, Dec. 18). Nonsense. Ms. Menchu, a Marxist ideologue, not only didn't even speak for most Indians in her own country, as suggested in your Dec. 15 front-page article, she supported the Sandinistas' [genocidal] repression of the Miskito and other Indians of Nicaragua in the early 1980's.

It is no surprise the Nobel committee will not revoke her prize, for much of this was known -- though now in greater detail -- before the prize was awarded. That's because Ms. Menchu fit the committee's political agenda, and it just hoped that no one would ever catch it up in such detail. A touch of justice has prevailed.

WILLIAM RATLIFF Stanford, Calif., Dec. 18, 1998

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Published: 12 - 20 - 1998 , Late Edition - Final , Section 4 , Column 4 , Page 12

NYTimes link

Despite her lies and support of Moscow's attempt to conquer Latin America and other crimes against freedom, the laughable Nobel Committee has not, to my knowledge, revoked the travesty of Menchu's Peace Prize. But the Stockholm committee did award the same prize to the vicious, unrepentant murder Yasser Arafat and another, only slightly more repentent killer of babies, Nelson Mandela.

Compare and contrast the treatment received by Kurt Waldheim, against whom war crimes charges were never brought, let alone admitted, and the treatment given to former and present Communists. Waldheim was savaged for merely belonging to a German military unit accused of war crimes while an admitted murderer like former KGB Gen. Oleg Kalugin and a suporter of mass murder like Rigoberto Menchu are given a free pass. That Socialism, Leftism and Liberalism are the vestibule of Stalinism cannot be seriously disputed by anyone conversant with the history of Marxism-Leninism. Not only are people still being murdered by Communist governments as you read this (2005), but their fellow travelers in the West are still murdering the truth as well.

• Peace Prize Winner Admits Discrepancies

( By The Associated Press ) 244 words Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 12 , Column 1

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 244 WORDS - A Nobel Peace Prize winner conceded yesterday that she mixed the testimony of other victims of Guatemala's civil war with her own life story in her account, I, Rigoberta ... Scholars have questioned the accuracy of some episodes described in the book, published in 1983...

NYTimes link

PainMan 01:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Really needs a source

"It later came to be known that 'I, Rigoberta Menchú' was in fact written by French Marxist Elisabeth Burgos-Debray" -- We should give a definite source for this or remove it. -- 6 january - 200.141.105.210 22:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed, please source, SqueakBox 23:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"fictional" -> "fictionalized"

"she published her fictionalized autobiography I, Rigoberta Menchú " -- I changed "fictional" to "fictionalized". This seems more accurate to me, since it contains some fact and some fiction. -- 200.141.105.210 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed. It was not published as a work of fiction, as I can source from my copy. It was rel;eased as a biography. Some people have pointed out theyu believe it is a work of fiction and we have covered this substantially. To characterise it as we did ion the opening is dishonest and not sourceable as the work was never released as a work of fiction, SqueakBox 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that whether or not we can (or should) call something fiction does not depend on whether or not it was published/"released" as fiction. For example, Carlos Castaneda's accounts of his apprenticeship with shaman Don Juan were "released as" nonfiction, however it is apparently the case that they are wholly (or very nearly wholly) fictitious. - 200.141.105.210 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a fair comparison as Castaneda was describing events that were impossible in the real world wheereas Menchu's story was at least somewhat credible, SqueakBox 17:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

PEACEFULLY RESOLVED?

The current article states that "[Menchú´s] book became a great success when translated into English, giving her a role on the international stage at the time of the ongoing conflict in Guatemala (in comparison to the other Central American countries where civil wars had been peacefully resolved)." (I am adding the emphasis). That´s not true at all. Take the example of Nicaragua. The civil war ended when the economy of the country was completely destroyed. Can you talk about ending a civil war "peacefully" in those conditions? I would state, that none of the three Central American civil wars of the 80s ended "peacefully". They ended first because of the destruction, and, second, because of the end of the Cold War and the beguining of a monopolar world. The very "peacefully" ending of the Central American conflict comes actually with the US invasion to Panama on December of 1989. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonuevo (talk • contribs)

Yes, as any Central American observer will realise there is a bloody war still going on in the region (we see more than 100,000 homicides/decade), mostly fighting over the illegal cocaine money that so many US and Europeans happily contribute to, SqueakBox 17:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Testimonio?

I'd like to see some sources about the concept of the "Testimonio". Even if Gatonuevo's claims are true, the autobiography was presented as a factual account, not as historical fiction. Therefore, claiming that it was never meant to be true is tantamount to an apology for falsifying her account. At any rate, it's POV and needs to go. - Guido del Confuso 09:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, SqueakBox 17:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the basic bibliography about testimonio include: Arias, Arturo, ed. The Rigoberta Menchú Controversy. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. ISBN: 0816636265

Beverley, John. Against Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.ISBN: 0816622485

Beverley, John. Subalternity and Representation: Arguments in Cultural Theory. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1999. ISBN: 0822324164

Gugelberger, Georg M., ed. The Real Thing: Testimonial Discourse and Latin America. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1996. ISBN: 082231844X

Arias´s and Gugelberger´s books are especially important because they include the debate regarding the problem of factual account, journalism vs antropology, etc. There are intervention of Stoll, Menchú, Burgos, and the debate is showed in all their conflicts. In Spanish it is important Beverley, John, and Hugo Achugar. La voz del otro: testimonio, subalternidad y verdad narrativa. 2ª ed. Guatemala: Universidad Rafael Landívar, 2002. (A translation of the title would be "The Voice of the Other: Testimonio, Subalternity and Narrative Truth").

I believe that to state that Menchú´s autobiography is a testimonio helps to understand her text in a cultural level. The thext it is not a conventional autobiography. It is a text written in a very specific and traumatic context. It is a text with certain non-journalistic relation to "truth".