English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This text analyzes the politics of testimony in the Truth Commissions in Guatemala (the Historical Clarification Commission – CEH) and Peru (the Truth and Reconciliation Commission – CVR) and its effect on the narratives contained in their respective final reports. Recognition for victims involves taking into consideration the narratives established to interpret the process of violence, which decisively influence the production of ideas and practices of citizenship central to the discourse of both Commissions. In these narratives, ideological representations of the “subversive Indian” directly affect the status of the main victims/individuals affected by the conflict (the indigenous peasant populations) as well as the role which ethnic and racial inequality, and racism in particular, plays in the interpretation of the armed conflicts offered by the Commissions. Thus, the work of both Commissions and the preceding academic debates reveal the complex relationship – deeply rooted in history – between Indian-ness and politics

The Politics of Testimony and Recognition in the Guatemalan and Peruvian Truth Commissions: The Figure of the ‘Subversive Indian’*