Abstract
At the end of the 1885 militar campaign, defeated indian populations were left in different conditions of cohesion or internal disintegration, opposing in general a strong resistance against the changes that began to be imposed either as an effect of the expansion of the capitalist relations of production, or due to the imposition of state control mechanisms. Within such context, the principles of “private property” and “paternal authority”, being the normative pillars of the legal system, played a determinant role to undermine domestic order. This social organization whose breaking up began with defeat, with deactivation of its military force, could re-adapt somewhat better in those cases in which the political line of natural leadership could survive. Thus, persistance or renewal of leaders, their negotiating capacity (or lack of it), and their compliance or rebellion marked in a categoric way the fate of the indigenous group (parcialidades). The viewpoint of the ethnic leadership constitutes the analytic axis of this paper since we consider it to be decisive to understand the different forms of resistance against the process of material and symbolic expropriation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
