Nobel Peace Prize

Rigoberta Mench

Nobel laureate Rigoberta Mench

  • more
    • All Share Services

In the 1983 book “I, Rigoberta Menchz,” the eponymous author, a Mayan Quichi Indian and winner of the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize, speaks movingly of the bloody horror that befell her family over years of civil war in Guatemala. Moreover, Menchz states, “What has happened to me has happened to many other people too: My story is the story of all poor Guatemalans. My personal experience is the reality of a whole people.”

A recent study suggests that the statement is more literal than it appears — that in fact Menchz augmented her own story with that of the Indians of Guatemala generally, reporting experiences she either did not have or could not have witnessed and misrepresenting the violent history of her area of Guatemala to support her own cause as a Guatemalan guerrilla organizer.

Anthropologist David Stoll, who conducted some 120 interviews for his new book, “Rigoberta Menchz and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans,” and Larry Rohter’s subsequent New York Times investigation report that numerous Guatemalans say that the central land dispute in Menchz’s story — painted as an effort by wealthy landowners and the government to drive her father off his land — was actually a long-running family feud; that Menchz, who claimed to be self-taught, in fact had a middle-school education; and that she described, movingly, witnessing the death by starvation of a brother who in fact died years before she was born.

In the ensuing controversy, conservative commentators like David Horowitz of Salon and Dinesh D’Souza dismissed Menchz as a fraud, while defenders, such as Greg Grandin and Francisco Goldman in the Nation charged that her story, if not always accurate, gets at the larger truth of the Mayans’ repression by a brutal U.S.-backed government.

But Menchz herself had not directly responded to the charges since they broke late last year, except to cast doubt on the motives of her critics. (A statement from the Rigoberta Menchz Tum Foundation contended that Menchz’s accusers want to restore a “paternalistic vision” and that Stoll’s interviews are “of dubious seriousness,” but the foundation did not address the “supposed inexactitudes.”) Thursday, in New York to discuss a forthcoming United Nations Truth Commission report on Guatemala with Kofi Annan, Menchz held a press conference to address the questions.

The diminutive Menchz, dressed in colorful blue and yellow Guatemalan clothing and accompanied by several people from her foundation, faced a well-behaved group of 20 to 25 journalists, few of whom seemed inclined to press the Nobel laureate very hard. Good-humored and defiant, Menchz, speaking through an interpreter, charged that her critics had attacked her to strike at an indigenous people for daring to add “to the official story our own story.” But her answers to specific questions were incomplete, puzzling or contradictory.

Menchú began her remarks with what looked like a bombshell, dramatically offering an explanation for her recounting of the death of a younger brother named Nicolas. Menchú wrote that he died of malnutrition on a plantation when she was 8 and he was only 2 — but Rohter found and interviewed her older brother, Nicolas, who refuted her story. Menchú’s explanation: She had two brothers named Nicolas: one born in 1949, who died, and one born in 1950, whom Rohter talked to.

A stunning retort — except that that birth date would make the other Nicolas 10 years older than Menchú. Did she watch her brother die of malnutrition when he was 17 years old? She did not directly answer a follow-up question asking how old Nicolas was when he died or what he died of. (Menchú and her representatives could not be reached for further comment by press time.) Reached at Middlebury College Thursday, Stoll said that a second Nicolas did exist, but died long before Menchú was born.

Likewise, Menchú reaffirmed that she was “self-taught,” receiving only informal education from nuns while working as a maid at a convent school for a year. (She said she purposely omitted the nuns from her book to protect them from the government.) “She’s still displaying a lack of candor,” said Stoll, pointing to records showing that she had attended three Catholic schools and one public school. “There are four stages in Rigoberta’s education, and what she’s describing doesn’t describe one of them.”

Stoll, who is sympathetic to Menchú, considers “how one member or another of her family died” a relatively minor question — no one disputes, for instance, that her parents and two brothers were killed by government forces. But her responses underscore doubts about how she represents larger questions affecting her portrayal of Guatemalan history, Indian life and the rise of the guerrilla movement.

There was some question before the press conference as to whether Menchú would directly rebut the charges at all. Some of her defenders have held that Western critics have unfairly, perhaps with bad intent, misunderstood Mayan oral tradition (Menchú’s book was an interview transcribed by Elisabeth Burgos-Debray) — an argument that, in a statement by her publisher, Verso, seems to combine condescension with facile media criticism: “Those who have worked in similar oral cultures tell me [the first person is not identified; the essay is credited to the Verso editorial department] that the distinction between what has happened to oneself and what has happened to close relatives or friends can be easily lost. Likewise, in our culture, we think we have witnessed something when we have seen it on TV.” (Hands up: Who remembers a family member pursuing a one-armed man in the name of justice?)

And at times, Menchú seemed to imply that her work should not be held to standards of literal truth. Her book, she emphasized, was not an “autobiography” but a “testimony”: “It tells my personal testimony, but it also has parts of the testimony of the collectiveness of Guatemala,” she said. “For common people such as myself, there is no difference between testimony, biography, and autobiography … What we do is tell what we have lived, not just alone.”

One could argue that even if its details are inaccurate, Menchú’s book is still valuable as a document of Mayans’ experience and of the horrors of the widely acknowledged abuses of the Guatemalan government. Even if that’s true, however, it’s troubling that Menchú seemed to want to have it both ways: She wanted both to offer factual rebuttals and to deny their importance. Take the central question of her father’s land dispute. She claims her father was harassed by wealthy landowners. Stoll argues that it was principally a family feud. Menchú answered a query by quickly saying the family dispute was settled by 1960 (Stoll has cited records indicating the dispute carried on through the 1970s, for most of the period covered by her book) — then segued into the general argument that the real land issue in Guatemala, between her people and the government, is still going on. Stoll, she said, has “decontextualized” this issue and “touched on this one little party that didn’t have a lot of land.” Fair enough — but that “one little party” provides the very narrative thread for “I, Rigoberta Menchú.”

Stoll believes that the firestorm over factual details has obscured more important historical issues, ones largely independent of the factual squabbles. For example, Menchú, claiming to speak for all poor Guatemalans, claims that the guerrilla resistance was a widely popular grass-roots movement among the Quiché Mayans. But Stoll argues that his interviews with Quichés indicate the choice “was imposed on them by a national-level contest between the government and the guerrillas that came into their area … Rigoberta does not have a monopoly on interpretation of the violence.”

In the end, Menchú’s response to Stoll and her other critics is to suggest that their charges should be dismissed as political, while discrepancies in her account should be forgiven because they’re political — but on the correct side. This isn’t a line of argument that does her much good.

All of which raises the question of whether there is a serious political-historical discussion to be had between Stoll’s and Menchú’s camps — one that will never really take place over the excited “liar, liar!” charges on one side and attacks on motives on the other. In her remarks Thursday, Menchú certainly gave every sign of ending the discussion: “This is the last time I will answer these questions … I have a heart, I have blood. I will not allow people to play with my dead ones, to profane the dead.”

With the U.N. Truth Commission preparing to deliver its report later this month and Guatemala assessing its postwar future, a less-polarized conversation might have been welcome. But between the accusations of PC fraud and defensive charges of grave-dancing, a potentially fruitful discussion of Central America’s past and future may have been the first casualty of peace.

James Poniewozik is the editor of Salon Media. For more columns by Poniewozik, visit his column archive.

What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

The worlds of pop and pomp collide at the Nobel Peace Prize concert in Oslo

  • more
    • All Share Services

Have you ever felt like the whole point of this planet is merely to act as a stage for big showbiz productions? Judging by the profusion of entertainment-oriented events in the sociopolitical complex, there may be some truth to that view. For the past five years, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded at the Oslo Town Hall on the anniversary of Alfred Nobel’s death, in conjunction with a pop concert meant to be, in the words of Nobel Institute director Geir Lundstadt, “a musical tribute to peace in general and to the peace laureate of the year in specific.” (Past concerts have featured Jewel, Sinéad O’Connor, Mariah Carey and Boyz II Men.) When it was announced earlier this year that the lineup would include the Cranberries, it fueled speculation that the peace prize winners — then unannounced — would be the Irish entrants, John Hume and David Trimble, as indeed turned out to be the case.

Although this year’s concert was somewhat overshadowed by the Amnesty International benefit concert held in Paris the night before, which drew the world music press to its gates with a bill boasting Radiohead, Peter Gabriel and Bruce Springsteen, the Nobel Peace Prize lineup featured Alanis Morissette, Shania Twain and Phil Collins, as well as several well-known international acts.

One has to wonder if the Nobel laureates are as edified by Twain’s presence as she is by theirs. During last Friday’s three-hour event, there were many times when I eyed both Trimble, Hume and His Royal Highness, King Harald of Norway, and wondered what they were thinking. Well, I can only imagine what they were thinking about Shania Twain, who’s extreme prettiness overshadows anything else she does. But is there not an unintentional trivialization that takes place when you add pop to pomp? Though that was my initial thesis, when the concert was over I had to revise my thesis. The Nobel Prize may have dignity on its side, but pop music has a power all its own — a power that can, in certain situations, work its own kind of miracle.

The concert was a relatively intimate gathering, attended by about 2,000 extremely well-heeled Norwegians in smart black coats and boots. But with regard to eclecticism, it had Lollapalooza beat by miles — some of the world’s biggest pop acts, like India’s Pandits ShivHari and Africa’s Oumou Sangare, delivered a fitting homage to the peace process that the Nobel Institute attempts to honor and facilitate.

But make no mistake: It was corny. Cornier than Christmas, cornier than “Cats,” even. I think I cried about 17 times, the first time when Trimble and Hume came into the arena together. Then I cried for the king, because earlier in the day I bought a postcard of him as a sweet little boy on a horse — and now, it turns out, he’s bald. Then I cried for the little boys in sailor suits who sang “God Save the King” in Norwegian. And it was all downhill from there. I managed to stay dry-eyed for the Cranberries and Phil Collins, but just barely. I choked up again when poor President Clinton came on the video screen to congratulate the laureates, and the audience audibly snickered. Luckily, Clinton had learned a sentence in Norske, and when he uttered it — “thanks and God bless” — the giggles turned to cheers.

- – - – - – - – - -

Norway, it seems, is an irony-free zone, which may be why the Nobel Peace Prize is bestowed there. Few non-Norwegians could stay as straight-faced as host Ase Kleveland (apparently Norway’s homegrown version of Joan Baez) did while delivering pious platitudes like “the prize is a flickering flame of hope in the violent darkness” — especially given the failed efforts of recent Nobel Peace Prize laureates, including, sadly, Hume and Trimble. But it must be even harder to utter such platitudes while introducing dopey pop stars who sing mostly stupid songs about sex.

Possibly the worst offenders of decorum were the Cranberries, who opened the concert by unabashedly plugging their upcoming LP. The Cranberries are a surprisingly apolitical band, unless you think of the lovelorn lyrics of songs like “Dreams” and the new “Promises” as a kind of Big Picture take on the Betrayal and Unease of Being Irish. That, however, was a bigger leap of faith than I was willing to make, especially when confronted with Dolores O’Riordan in an itty-bitty gold tank top, leather pants and one of those faux fur coats à la “Velvet Goldmine.” But the lyrics to “Dreams” (“And Oh my dreams, it’s never quiet as it seems”) did remind me of Trimble’s somewhat dark and pessimistic acceptance speech, in which he pointed out that the peace process in Ireland is a long way from being enacted: “[That doesn't mean that] I don’t have dreams — I do — but I try to have them at night.”

The pragmatic Trimble, unswayed by the sappy romantic idealism of Nobelliousness, was probably not the proper audience for the pop fluffiness that followed — particularly the next act, gorgeous Norwegian boy-toy Espen Lind. He sang a song called “Pop From Hell” that was equal parts Bauhaus and Ace of Base. After him, however, the concert became increasingly sentimental. First James Galway and Phil Coultier did “Danny Boy” (which they also performed at the acceptance ceremony). They were followed by Twain, who’s ultra-glamorous version of new country music is just about as far from real country as real country is from the 17th century Irish folk music from which it evolved. I saw a review in the Norwegian paper the next day that referred to Twain as “plastikkdame,” a word that doesn’t really require translation. Nevertheless, her rendition of “You’re Still the One I Want” was pretty moving; having been worked over by Kleveland and an endless slide show of Belfast terrors, I got all choked up during lines like, “They said we’d never make it/but look how far we’ve made it.”

Enrique Iglesias, the Shania Twain of Latin America, was equally fabulous, especially the way he made the words “por favor” last for 15 syllables. Collins, accompanied by a slide show of homeless people, sang two of his “socially conscious” songs, “Both Sides of the Story” and “Another Day in Paradise” — and even that didn’t make me nauseous. Numerous Nobel laureates addressed the crowd via video. A bunch of young schoolgirls sang “O Come All Ye Faithful” directly to Hume and Trimble, who stood awkwardly in front of them with their hands clasped, looking like they hated life.

Presently, Bono came on the video screen to tell us he felt “blessed” that the Nobel Peace Prize went to Hume and Trimble, and that “for the first time in years in Ireland, it feels like the future is more vivid than the past.” A-Ha came on next and rocked my world, and finally Morissette closed the show with “Baba,” “Uninvited” and “Thank U.” As had been the case with Twain’s performance, here Morrisette’s songs were infused with deeper meaning. “How ’bout not blaming you for everything? How ’bout finally forgiving?” she sang, staring straight at Hume and Trimble. “Thank you terror. Thank you disillusionment. Thank you clarity. Thank you frailty. Thank you consequence …” In a single, pure moment, pop idiocy rose right above rhetoric, and somehow it all made sense.

Continue Reading Close

Gina Arnold is a columnist at the East Bay Express in Berkeley, Calif., and the author of the just-released book "Kiss This: Punk in the Present Tense" (St. Martin's Press).

Crossing borders

The famed Mayan activist whose mother and brother were tortured and killed reflects on the family -- and village -- she lost in Guatemala.

  • more
    • All Share Services

The last time I had gone home to Laj Chimel, before going to other parts of Guatemala and finally into exile, was early in October 1979. I arrived without warning and I did not stay long. It was soon after my brother, Patrocinio, had been detained, tortured and killed. My mother was absolutely devastated by his death. When she saw me coming she began to weep bitterly. Not just for the joy of seeing me safe and sound, but to tell me of her terrible grief after the soldiers had killed one of her children — by burning him alive. She was petrified, because she realised that I too was in great danger of being kidnapped. She feared she might lose another child. She was a mother, and her children were her whole life.

The situation in Chimel had become so bad that most families had begun fleeing to the mountains, to sleep in the ravines, to keep watch over the village day and night. Most families were living in terror, fearing that any minute the soldiers would come.

I was twenty years old in October 1979. A new counter-insurgency campaign had begun. Its main destructive effect was on the lives of indigenous peasants in the rural areas. The hardest things were the intimidation, the destruction of the land, the persecution of our community leaders, the use of torture, and the army’s introduction of the Civil Defence Patrols (PACs) which gradually took over our communities. Soon the whole countryside was under the control of the military. My beloved father, Vicente Menchú Perez, was still alive then, though already, as a result of his thirty year struggle for our land in Chimel, he was being hounded and receiving death threats. At that time, he was in hiding in another part of Guatemala.

There is nothing worse than living under the constant threat of persecution. My mother’s fears were shared by the whole community. I had so little time with her, yet those few hours in my own home made up for the years I was to spend away on the long path of experience. A strange, mysterious destiny awaited me and my mother seemed to sense it. I wanted to devote my whole life to Chimel, and I was committed to the struggle. “Find somewhere to go,” my mother said. “You can’t hide here.” I felt powerless to ease my mother’s pain. It was not possible, even by being there with her. I was so afraid of losing her.

I will never get over the trauma of having left my mother so shortly before her death. It was my last chance to feel a mother’s warmth. If I had known, I would at least have paused to look at her, to gaze at her face for the last time. I would have tried, to the very last, to learn more about her. All I could think of in my misery was that I had to go away. There are no words to describe that moment.

I shall never forget Mama fetching a little jar and taking out a red necklace, a medallion of the sun and five quetzales. She dropped it all in my hands, looked towards the rising sun and closed her eyes. She wept as she prayed. Then I left. My little sister, Anita, ran after me, crying too. I did not turn back to look at her. I had a premonition I would never see my mother, my little sister or my entire community again. I was almost certain. Never again would I see the humble village where I was born and grew up, where the elders taught us the meaning of the different kinds of birdsong, the meaning of darkness, the place where I learned what it meant to be a descendant of the Mayans of Guatemala.

Some neighbours smuggled me out of Chimel and we set off towards Santa Cruz del Quiché, and walked all through the night. Going through Uspantán was difficult. The neighbours with me were afraid of the soldiers billeted in the village, and we had no choice but to head off for another village, called Cunén. It was raining, torrential rain, typical Chimel weather. It rains for nine months of the year. On some parts of the track, the mud was waist-deep. It poured all night and we were drenched. The cold was unbearable. It was hard to tell the difference between the pain of exhaustion and cold, and the pain of walking towards a wholly new destiny. It is one of the experiences engraved deepest in my memory.

Whenever I thought about my mother, and remembered that last evening together, I was filled with longing and pain. Yet at the same time I could feel the mud, the rain, the sadness. I breathed in the spirit of those thick clouds, the spirit of that wet earth, along with the ugly sensation of fear. Ever since that time, I have had a utopian vision, a determination to go home and live in that little hut in Chimel. I have seen it many times in my dreams, just as I left it. When I dream of my mother, I always have the same feeling. I can feel the fire, the wood, the atmosphere, the sense of a whole life that can never be recovered.

I wish I could have worked some kind of miracle to have my mother with me when Papa died. I felt an almost telepathic communication with her. I tried to guess whether my way of dealing with Papa’s death would be the
same as hers. When my father was about to die, I dreamed of a little room full of light and heat. He was wearing strange clothes. He looked sad. He told me, “Take great care of yourself because I am no longer with your mother. We are no longer together.” Then, weeping with sadness, I replied “But why, Papa? I believe in you and I believe in Mama. We shall only be happy if the two of you are together.”

“You must trust me,” he replied. It was only a dream. Three days later he was dead.

When my mother died, I had a similar dream. I dreamed that I was coming down the hill of Cholá, the crag on the hillside near our village. I saw my mother coming up the hill. She was carrying a heavy basket on her head. Suddenly I saw that the basket was full of rotten meat. I was terrified. About five days after my dream, I heard that my mother had been abducted and was being tortured at the army barracks in Xejul. I knew then that she would not come back.

I have discovered much more about my mother over the years since her death. Gradually I have begun to realise that she was far greater than the person that I had known. She was a wonderful woman with many most admirable qualities. She was a midwife and a healer, and possessed many of the virtues of our ancestors. She had brought us up well. I understand that now that she has gone. She was right when she said that her hands were large and invisible. With those hands, she brought babies into the world, naked and confused, and dragging a great umbilical cord. We are born into empty space, and our first contact with the world is with the hands of a midwife, and the umbilical cord passes from those hands to be buried in the earth so that it takes root. This is what Mama and our elders told me.

- – - – - – - – - -

My grandfather was from Chiquimula. In Guatemala, the Chiquimulas are like Gypsies in other parts of the world. They lost their land about 150 years ago. It was part of the province of Totonmcapan. Many of them still live in Santa Marma Chiquimula, but most of them wander around Guatemala. They speak their own language. They wear red-and-black clothes: a red-and-black huipil and a hand-woven corte with a multicoloured fringe round the middle. They wear lots of ribbons in their hair and a red necklace, like the red necklace that I have kept with me all these years, my only necklace that marks the passage of time. It’s the red necklace of the Chiquimulas.

Their faces are much darker than other peoples’. They have dark skin and prominent cheekbones, so Chiquimulas never go unnoticed. They were the most despised ethnic group. They have no land, they have no place of their own. Everywhere they are treated with contempt, and people think they are lazy. They take over a patch of land to set up a market, to sell a few things. They always stay together. They have never given up their traditional dress, even though other ethnic groups discriminate against them.

When I say ethnic groups, I mean all the ones in Guatemala, both nonindigenous and indigenous peoples. We sort of wanted to hide our identity when we were little, and even when we were teenagers, because everybody used to laugh at us. When they wanted to insult us, they called us “Chiquimulas.” It wasn’t a serious insult, not like when a ladino tells his pet dog to “stop behaving like an Indian.”

Our childhood was different from that of today’s young. We learned to enjoy nature. It still fills me with a sense of wonderment and great strength. I remember the feeling of cold and the season when there are mushrooms everywhere. We used to go from one end of the forest to the other, searching for a special kind of mushroom, the most delicious kind, the one that tastes like chicken breast. Moo was our equivalent of meat. It was a delicacy we never missed when it was in season. Along the track we used to find slip, xik’in mam and ra’q masat, all the kinds of mushroom you can make into a delicious meal. It was so cold!

I also remember the tricks my brother Patrocinio and I used to get up to. We were very close. We learned to help each other when we were little. When he was born I was still being breast-fed and we shared Mama’s milk. She would feed him first, and I would have what was left. I remember how we would steal panela from home and then go off into the hills to pick mulberries. We would spend all day eating them. Patrocinio is the one I remember most from my childhood. We were always together, we grew up together, we shared our fears.

Ancient cultures have always recognised the sources of energy from Mother Earth, sources we can never completely understand. We regard bees as sacred, because they are so fierce. They are creatures that sting, and no one could survive being stung by a hundred bees. Yet they are also as sweet as honey, for although they are fierce animals they also live together collectively, in a community.

Many myths surround bees. They say that bees that live in remote places where there are no chemicals are not domesticated, the rules of nature are unbroken, and they exist very much like a family, united, with the solidarity of a community. One day, when we were still living in Chimel, the queen bee, the one that never leaves her nest, came into our hut. My mother was scared stiff. She thought it might be a bad omen for the family. She was so worried that she prayed and burned some pom. She was trying to counteract the omen. We caught the queen bee, and Mama held her so gently as she put her back in her hive. Two days later four hives of bees flew away. Four queen bees left.

This was just a month or two before my brother Patrocinio fell into the hands of the army. My mother cried every time she went out. She went to the place where the bees had been, and she cried. Bees were very important to us during Holy Week. That was the time when we collected the honey. We always had plenty of honey at home. We got stomach ache from eating so much. We used to share it with our neighbours. We would exchange a little jar of honey for the friendship of the community. We would make a present of an eighth or a quarter of honey to people in the little villages roundabout. It was a custom. That’s why it was so sad when the bees flew away. Most of all it was because my mother was very worried, although, like all mothers, she tried not to show it. When my brother was taken away, my mother interpreted it as a message from the bees telling us that the family was about to break up.

On the morning Patrocinio left home, my mother said that first she heard the xo’ch, the bat, singing, and then the tucur, the eagle owl. It sang at dawn, at three in the morning when Patrocinio went to get his horse to ride with my mother to town. When that bird sang, my mother said, “Don’t come with me. Stay at home, son!” Mama thought he would be safer in the house. My brother wouldn’t stay, perhaps because his fate was already sealed.

“I’m telling you to stay at home,” my mother said, but Patrocinio would not listen. My mother wasn’t really sure if he would be more at risk if he stayed at home or if he was on the road. Night after night she had dreamed of the shadow of evil. She had seen the signs. You never knew whom the message was for, although Mama was most afraid for Patrocinio. She just couldn’t decide what to do. So they went to town.

There they sold all their stuff, and everything was fine until the moment they said goodbye. Patrocinio was going to see his girlfriend who lived near the town. My mother told him, “Be very careful and come home soon.” She started climbing the Chola hill, the hill I remember so well, a really steep hill that takes two and a half hours to climb. As she went up the hill, my mother said she had a very strong feeling and she remembered how afraid she had been when she heard the tucur singing at daybreak.

Patrocinio never came back. He was kidnapped by the army. During all that time Mama and the family had terrible premonitions, they had many bad or strange messages that something dreadful would happen. The dogs howled and howled, the bees flew away, and other things happened. We knew there were bad times ahead, but nobody knew what that would mean.

When my mother was alive I never managed to understand her completely. I may have admired many things about her, but I didn’t understand or imitate her. I didn’t learn from her intuitively. Maybe her wisdom was hidden. All those mysteries she told us about came from her own life and experience.

Only in the last twelve years have I realised what she was. For me, she is a constant teacher. Every time things go wrong for me, I always ask myself how she would have coped. I know she would have dealt with things calmly, realistically, simply. She wouldn’t have rushed about making a fuss. She is still my teacher today, in ways I can’t really define. I can’t explain it. I think she is my subconscious, and she solves problems I could never solve on my own.

When I dream of my mother, it’s something very special. It makes be feel young again, full of energy and enthusiasm, all peaceful inside. I always remember her saying to me “You can’t fool me, my girl. I’m your mother. I brought you into the world. You can fool your brother, your sister, your friends, but you can never fool your conscience. Your conscience knows the truth.”

Perhaps I idealise my mother, but I believe it is important to idealise mothers because they are the ones who gave us life. It makes us much humbler.

When they killed her, they didn’t just murder a woman, a mother; they also murdered a healer, a midwife, a woman of great knowledge, a carer. Whenever I think of the struggles and the history of my people, whenever I claim my physical and spiritual identity, I admire my mother more and more. I will never stop grieving for her.

Continue Reading Close

Rigoberta Menchz was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992. She is the author of another book, "I, Rigoberta Menchz," the first volume of her autobiography. She currently lives in Guatemala City with her husband and son.

Page 7 of 7 in Nobel Peace Prize