Concentrating on the political history of the region of Huaylas-Ancash from the 1820s to the 1890s, Thurner presents a sophisticated study of Indian-State relations in postcolonial Peru. He argues that political interaction between Indian peasants and the nascent Peruvian state was fundamentally different from other late-colonial political relations. Indians, though still mainly viewed as taxpayers and as social inferiors by the creole elite, engaged in political actions on the basis of their own ideas of republicanism.
Paradoxically, the Indian notion of la república was worlds apart from any liberal or enlightened understanding of republicanism and had its roots in the colonial division between la república de los indios and la república de los españoles. Thus, political confrontation took place within the framework of nineteenth-century liberalism and the Indians’ peculiar understanding of Peruvian independence. Thurner argues against the idea that the political world of Andean peasants was continuously influenced by Andean utopianism (or lo andino) and he demands to liberate the history of nineteenth-century Peru from the burden of the allegedly fruitless notion of the colonial legacy as a dominant historical force.
The author’s linguistic discussion of how Indians tried to come to terms with this newly established republic of Peru and how the peasant sector moved into the “postcolonial limbo between tributary subject and citizen taxpayer” (p. 53) includes fascinating ideas. The analysis of the role that Indian alcaldes played as mediators between the Indian sector and the creole dominated state is equally interesting. The author aims to show that during the colonial period, political and fiscal control over Indians was indirect, while after independence control became more direct through the introduction of alcaldes and different layers of petty state officials.
In his presentation of the Atusparia uprising of 1885, Thurner continues to emphasize the Indian’s distinct notion of republicanism and citizenship and reaches the conclusion that this uprising was “historically and politically distinct” (p. 145) from the Túpac Amaru Rebellion. While the uprising of the 1780s was loaded with Andean symbolism and utopian ideas, Atusparia was a peasant rebellion against an abusive tax system, which took place within the framework of the republican order of Peru (or disorder, as Thurner likes to phrase it).
The intellectual and analytical power behind this work is impressive. In this respect Thurner’s book is very stimulating and it stands out from less theoretical case studies that leave little room for criticism. However, this book has significant flaws. The lack of socioeconomic data on the region of Huaylas-Ancash is one of the serious shortcomings. It is disappointing (if not annoying) that the author, who does not relent in emphasizing his effort to bridge the gap between history and anthropology, offers so little insight into the social and economic reality of the region under study.
Thurner’s analysis of court cases and peasant petitions could also go further. For instance, reference to colonial notions of republicanism may have served specific political purposes. Petitions are not written to make political or philosophical statements, but to achieve political goals. The absence of Andean symbolism and utopianism from this political discourse does not necessarily mean that it did not exist in the peasant world of Huaylas-Ancash.
All in all, the author’s struggle against the notions of the colonial legacy and continuous Andean utopianism is not very convincing. The set of empirical data used in this study is not solid enough to support his often wordy theoretical discussions and the author never asks himself to what extent his findings for Huaylas-Ancash can or cannot be applied to Peru in general. Far-reaching and bold arguments as presented in this book require a more in-depth study. No doubt, this work will not stay uncontested for very long.
