Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 Spivak, Gayatri. 1988. Can the Subaltern Speak?' In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 271–313. 2 Volek, Emil. 2002. Latin America Writes Back. New York: Routledge. 3 Beverley, John. 2008. The Neoconservative Turn in Latin American Literary and Cultural Criticism. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies 17(1): 65–83. 4 Petras, James and Morris Morley. 1990. The Metamorphosis of Latin America's Intellectuals. In US Hegemony Under Siege: Class, Politics and Development in Latin America, edited by James Petras and Morris Morley. London: Verso Books, 271–313. 5 Burgos, Elisabeth, ed. 1983. I, Rigoberta Menchú. London: Verso. David Stoll. 1999. Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 6 Kuper, Adam. 1999. Culture: The Anthropologists' Account. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 7 Legorreta Díaz, Maria del Carmen. 1999. La autonomía como reivindicación indígena? Revista: Leviatán (Madrid) 76: 139–59. Hernández Castillo, Rosalva Aída. 2001. Between Civil Disobedience and Silent Rejection: Differing Responses by Mam Peasants to the Zapatista Rebellion. Latin American Perspectives 28(2): 98–119. Leyva Solano, Xóchitl 2001. Regional, Communal, and Organizational Transformations in Las Cañadas. Latin American Perspectives 28(2): 20–44.Moksnes, Heidi. 2004 Factionalism and Counterinsurgency in Chiapas: Contextualizing the Acteal Massacre. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 76: 109–117. Van der Haar, Gemma. 2004. The Zapatista Uprising and the Struggle for Indigenous Autonomy. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 76: 99–108. Laura Castellanos. Learning, Surviving: Marcos After the Rupture. 2008. NACLA Report on the Americas, May/June, 34–39. 8 Krauze, Enrique. 1999. Chiapas: The Indians' Prophet. New York Review of Books, 16 December. 9 Pitarch, Pedro. 2004. The Zapatistas and the art of ventriloquism. Journal of Human Rights 3(3): 291–312. According to Pitarch, Marcos was adept at ‘giving one's voice distinct intonations and altering it in such a way that it appears to emanate from a different source. In other words, subcomandante Marcos projected his own interests and political strategies, making them appear, through some simple stylistic tricks and commonplace themes, as if they came from the indigenous population of Chiapas.’ ‘Within a very short time, this pastiche language came to be understood as a true “Indian” language and…began to be imitated by many. It could be heard amongst Mexican pro-Zapatistas, international visitors, journalists, and even began to spread amongst congressmen, senators and government workers. Even the Mexican president, Ernesto Zedillo, began to speak in “Indian” in his speeches to indigenous people. Marcos' Indian language was so particular and so difficult to imitate that, even on the very rare occasions that the Zapatista leaders of indigenous origin did speak in public or were interviewed, their words ended up being…somewhat disappointing and not particularly – or sufficiently – “Indian”.’