Introduction

Abstract

After major violent events that affect lots of people, we always want to know 'the truth' of what happened. In fact, 'the truth' depends on how successfully the text about the event stirs up our emotions. Whether it's official sources or a 'voice of the people', if their words make us feel angry, sad or ashamed, research shows that we will believe them. If not, then we'll discount them, even if the information we're being given in both cases is the same. My analysis of the texts by the Mexican government, media, and populace published after the Tlatelolco massacre of 2 October 1968 shows that there is no strict division between the way these texts depicted what happened. In fact, both sides of the conflict used similar (and sometimes, the same) images and language to incite particular emotions in the reader. My book differs from other studies of the massacre in that it treats the Tlatelolco state and public discourses as complementary to each other. Previous analyses of the Tlatelolco literature focus on its relationship with the Tlatelolco state discourse and the way it challenges the untruthfulness of the official version of the massacre. However, I argue that the process of deconstructing the state version of the Tlatelolco discourse is not just the 'dismantling of the official version of history'. I posit that both official and public versions use each other's most powerful or effective means of attracting the public's attention to particular images that evoke the strongest emotional reaction.