Reaction to Massacre in Mexico

I thought Massacre in Mexico was interesting primarily because it told a story that I had previously heard nothing about. I think that's rather sad, because the fact that the event took place right before the Olympics should have made it huge international news, and the victims should still be remembered with the Olympics today. However, it was kept secret precisely because of the Olympic games, and seems to have flown under the international radar ever since.

My last post was about the Olympics, too, and my feelings about this book match up with my feelings about human rights and the Olympics in general. I think that the students were probably trying to use the extra publicity of the journalists in town for the Olympics to their advantage, and the Mexican government was not going to allow the students to embarrass them in front of the entire world. Unfortunately, this resulted in the murder and imprisonment of many people, but it is easy to see why the government overreacted. In a way, the students provoked the government by making a fuss in front of the international visitors. While it is true that they should be allowed to state their opinions whenever they want, to whomever they want, they really could have done things in a more diplomatic way. I don't want to sound as though I am excusing the massacre or human rights violations in general, but I do feel as though it was a bad move on the students' part to demonstrate on the eve of such an internationally viewed spectacle as the Olympics. In addition, I feel as though the manner in which the government fought showed how panicked they were -- they were disorganized and ended up shooting at each other as much as at the students. I think that shows that they were desperate to keep the students from acting up in front of the international community.

Writing-wise, I thought the book gives a good sense of the chaotic nature of the event. The various fragments provide quick glimpses into peoples' experiences, and while it was frustrating to try to keep all of the names and relationships straight, that also added to the feeling of chaos and confusion that must have been felt at the time. The only issue I had with the form was that it became very repetitive, and I felt as though I were reading the same thing over and over.

Overall, I think this is a good read simply because it tells a story that is too infrequently told, both in the sense of the actual event and in that it shows the darker side of the Olympics, which is too often covered up.

Human Rights and the Olympics

I love the Olympics. I love the over dramatized footage of athletes' lives, cheering for countries that I forget exist most of the time, and watching athletes jump up in down for coming in third. However, my love of this international spectacle is tainted by the knowledge that with every Olympics comes a slew of human rights violations.

In this article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/27/AR2010022703315.html , the author blames the IOC for not doing enough to prevent and/or rectify the human rights violations, pointing out that they managed to rebuke the Canadian women's hockey team for drinking champagne on the ice while not acting against rights violations. This article http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/12/olympics-dont-skate-over-rights-violations also urges the need for more focus on human rights reform. I find it interesting that both authors mention China and Russia as human rights violators but do not say much about Canada, even though both articles were written recently. It makes me wonder if Canada is doing well in the issue of human rights or if problems are being covered up until later.

Naturally, the question arises of whether these human rights violations are typical in these countries, or if they are something caused by the Olympics. This article, written about the problems with the Olympics in Beijing, suggests the latter: http://www.euractiv.com/en/sports/olympics-triggering-human-rights-violations-china/article-171524 If that is the case, can the IOC really do anything about it? If people see the Olympics as an opportunity to protest their cause before an international audience, is it really the fault of the host nation for wanting to repress the demonstrations and therefore save face before the world? It's no wonder that countries do not allow journalists to report things such as unrest in their countries in a time when everyone in the international community is watching. The Olympics are supposed to breed understanding and camaraderie, but in reality they create a huge stage for people to show off their message to the world. Of course people want to use that opportunity to complain, and of course their countries don't want them to. It's a cycle that can't really be stopped as long as the Olympics remain as they are. I love the Olympics, but I don't see how the cycle can be broken.

Of course, if the people had nothing to complain about there wouldn't be a problem, but we do not live in a perfect world. Someone will always be unhappy, and want to tell people about it. I just wonder what has been going on in Canada during these Olympic games, and if we will hear anything about it.

Reaction Questions

One of the aspects of the introduction of I, Rigoberta Menchú that most interested me was the fact that Elisabeth Burgos gives herself the majority of the credit for the creation of the book. It is true that she thanks Rigoberta at the end of the introduction and that she explains how Rigoberta told her story, even recording some answers that Burgos did not interview her on, but overall the part of the introduction that deals with the book itself seems to be focused more on Burgos and what she did to put the book together. Burgos certainly had to put in a lot of work to transcribe the recordings and put them in book form, but it irked me that she placed so much emphasis on her part of the creation, when in my mind Rigoberta’s was the much more difficult and valuable contribution. It is interesting, then, that Burgos chose to leave her questions out of the actual text. Perhaps she felt awkward protruding that much into someone else’s story, and had to content herself with asserting in the introduction that she was originally a part of the manuscript, thus ensuring that the reader would know that the book was not Menchú’s work alone, and that Burgos deserved credit too. I would be interested in knowing how Rigoberta Menchú feels about the authorship of the book – if she feels like it is an autobiography, or if she sees it as a book about her life written by Burgos.

Somewhat similarly, I was curious as about the relationship between Menchú and Burgos. Burgos implies that the two became close friends during the week, partly due to the fact that they were both brought up on the fare of tortillas and black beans. I find her description of Rigoberta, however, to be rather off-putting. Burgos describes Menchú in a manner that sounds almost degrading, emphasizing her childlike features and bringing attention to her clothes, which Burgos does not seem to deem adequate for the Parisian weather. It is almost as though Burgos is trying to create a specific (and somewhat stereotypical) image of an indigenous woman – innocent, pure, and poorly clothed while somehow enduring the cold. While all of these descriptions might in all actuality apply to Rigoberta Menchú, Burgos piled all of them together in one place in the introduction, causing the image to feel forced and causing me, as a reader, to feel as though Burgos were trying to manipulate my way of thinking about Menchú.

It must be noted that this book was not written in Guatemala, where the events in it take place, or even in Venezuela, where Burgos grew up, but rather in Paris. It is possible that this caused the interview to be distant from the situation in Guatemala, but judging on the wealth of information contained in the book, I think that if the location had an effect it was in the opposite manner. It is plausible that being away from Guatemala gave Menchú a sense of security that allowed her to talk about matters that it would not have been safe to discuss in Guatemala. Burgos has another point on this matter: “Similarly, if we had been in her home in El Quiché, her descriptions of the landscape would not have been so realistic” (xix). Surrounded by a French city instead of her familiar home, Menchú would have been unable to take anything for granted – she would have had to assume that Burgos did not have prior knowledge of anything she was talking about, and so would most likely have gone into greater detail than she would have had the Guatemalan scenery been all around them.

Burgos states that the idea for the book came from a Canadian woman who was sympathetic to the indigenous people. She says that Menchú’s motivation for doing the interview was to tell not only about the sufferings of her people, but also to make the world more aware of her culture. As for Burgos’ motivations, they can be inferred by the additional background information given in the introduction. Burgos describes the situation in not only Guatemala, but Latin America as a whole, reminding the reader that oppression does not come only from outside sources but also from within a country. Much like the ideas expressed in The Post-Colonial Studies Reader, that colonial practices do not stop with independence and that internal division is a sign of continuing colonialism, Burgos states, “there is an internal colonialism which works to the detriment of the indigenous population” (xii). With such a strong statement it can be assumed that Burgos’ motivation in working on the project comes from a dislike of the internal practices of colonialism in Latin America. Perhaps in creating the book she hoped to bring these practices to light, especially to a non-Latin American audience, as she wrote it in Europe.

Overall, the introduction to I, Rigoberta Menchú is interesting to read because it is Burgos’ thoughts, not Menchú’s, that are allowed to be heard. It is possible, therefore, to look into Burgos’ view of Menchú, the situation in Guatemala and all of Latin America, and to guess as to what her own motivations were for embarking on such a project.

4. If Menchú becomes president, I think she will have a hard time being impartial in regards to not favoring the Maya. Judging by the way she comes across in the book, she has come to be more accepting of the ladinos but still dislikes the upper class. If she is president, she will have to do things that help the rich as well as the poor, and I am not sure if she will be willing to do that, or even think of the rich as having needs and rights of their own. Hopefully she will at least work for rights for the ladinos as well, but personally I think she will be focused almost entirely on the Maya.

I chose to respond to the question regarding Menchu's possible future presidency because I feel as though that is the next step for her, at least in terms of what she will try to accomplish. After learning more about the controversy surrounding Rigoberta and her book, I feel even more strongly that she would focus more on her own concerns and not so much on those of the Guatemalan population as a whole. I do not think she would intentionally neglect anyone, but I could see her manipulating her power in order to benefit those she considers to be worthier of her help.