The oppression of the Mapuche seems today to be intensifying rather than subsiding. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that much of the literature on indigenous peoples' struggle to maintain their identity and culture—from the colonial period, to the period of independence, and now in modern Latin America—often focuses on the uniform and firm demands of indigenous peoples in conflict with those of an equally stubborn state that represses the will of indigenous communities.

However, current studies on the relationship between indigenous peoples and the state are of limited value in answering a few key questions about the complexity of their actions and interactions. In these days, in which the Foucauldian state diversifies its tools of governance under the name of ‘neoliberal multiculturalism,’ the line between the Mapuche and the state often blurs, even as more programs for the indigenous are devised. How can we explain this complex relationship? What lessons can we learn from it?

This book provides a solid starting point for the exploration, using the Mapuche as a case study. The author's thorough knowledge of Mapuche cultural and intellectual production, the Chilean state's cultural policies, and non-indigenous Chilean cultural and intellectual production shows “the reality of highly complex, shifting relationship between the Mapuche and the Chilean state” (p. 213). It shows also “that, alongside a history of discrimination... there exist multiple attempts... to dialogue with and understand indigenous cultures” among non-indigenous Chileans (p. 213).

One important merit of this study is that it begins with the occupation of Araucanía, a circumstance in which most imagine that state action against the Mapuche, and the Mapuche reaction to it, were fairly monolithic. However, detailed research on the cultural history of the occupation era reveals a rather complex picture of state actions and indigenous responses to state oppression. The state's official propaganda regarding the occupation stresses its “peaceful” execution and the cooperation of the Mapuche in the process; in reality, the state supported the brutality of its military forces in carrying out acts of violence occurred in many Mapuche communities.

The author found that “documents produced by the same military authorities that were leading the campaign (of occupation), the newspapers that often condemned the Mapuche as barbaric savages, and the accounts written by the local historians who celebrated the military ‘pacification’ of indigenous territory” challenged the official rhetoric of the Chilean state regarding the occupation at that time (p. 36). These documents show that at the height of state violence, the state did not necessarily act in a uniform manner, even though it may have seemed to do so. The responses of the Mapuche to the occupation are even more nuanced. Although the Mapuche strongly condemned the violence against their people during the occupation, their attitudes toward the nation-building process varied. As the story of Manuel Manquilef González indicates, “Participation in the nation-building project did not preclude all resistance against it, and vice versa; they could be involved in one element of it and reject another” (p. 41).

This complexity of action persists throughout Chilean history. This book details how state and Mapuche actions have varied and transformed throughout history, and demonstrates that they have never been simple and clear. From Frei to Allende, and from Pinochet to Lagos, the regimes pursued relationships with the Mapuche; yet, the duration of the effort does not mean that state actions were monolithic. There have always been multiple perspectives on indigenous programs, which have often functioned as spaces to test and compare different ideas regarding the relationship between the state and the Mapuche, rather than as direct results or outcomes of state action.

The rich cultural history of this relationship between the Chilean state and the Mapuche leads one to question why we should pay attention to this complexity rather than seek clear-cut answers. The author gives a good answer to this question when she discusses the “truth” of the Mapuche actions under the Pinochet dictatorship. She states, “I probe the conflicting narratives of the dictatorial past, calling attention to some of the lesser-known stories. These do not undermine the dominant version of events. Instead, they add to it and help us to understand further how Pinochet managed to remain in power for so long” (p. 153).

Exploring the complexity and diversity of state actions also allows us to understand how dominant discourses hold sway for so long. The secret of the persistence of dominance lies not in its iron grip but in its flexible and nuanced actions. This book certainly offers a solid analysis of the factors behind the continuing dominance of the Chilean elites. More importantly, it illustrates the driving force behind the persistent struggle of the Mapuche against the state. Multiple voices among the Mapuche throughout history did not undermine Mapuche activism. Rather, these diverse voices turned out to be the essence of its vitality.