As well as providing insight into the specific struggles of the Tojolabals, as learned through her field observations, Mattiace chronicles the attitudinal patterns of resistance and containment that have categorized the relationship of the Mexican state with indigenous peoples. In the 1930s the separatist political organizations of native tribes were forced by the ruling government to become members of the national party. There was a move to create a singular, fused Mexican identity, culturally and through the use of government influence (Mattiace, 2003, p.57). Ironically, this method of containment failed: being tied to the national party raised rather than inhibited the political awareness of tribes such as the Tojolabal.

In the 1950s and the 1960s, the programs of the National Indigenous Institute (INI) continued the official assimilationist policy of the Mexican government. A debate raged as to the question if traditional ways of life could or should be preserved, while Mexico strove to 'advance' economically in the world community. There also the question if indigenous people's function in government should be participatory or if the tribes should have regional or local autonomy. Still, the NIH, for all of its many flaws, kept alive indigenous political organization, dialogue, and cohesion. During the 1970s, the NIH became less assimilation-focused in nature and more populist in quality, given the liberal policies of President Luis Echeverria. Echeverria reflected the dual consciousness of class and indigenous culture advocated by radicals. However, a series of crises affected Mexico during the 1970s and 1980s, beginning with an agrarian crisis in the 1970s and a financial crisis during the early 1980s. This inhibited state control of agricultural organizations, as well as bolstered the opposition party. The estrangement from the national government of indigenous organizations sowed the seeds for the Zapatista movement.

The problem with Mattiace's thesis is that it tends to separate indigenous rights from poverty. A central contention even of the Tojolabal leaders is that the two issues are inseparable. Mattiace's stress that a shift occurred from a class focus to a culture focus in revolutionary movements belies the fact that so many issues require both factors to be addressed, such as the issue of land reform, as was manifest during the Tojolobal's brief period of self-governance (Mattiace, 2003, pp. 26-28). Mattiace admits that indigenous culture and class-based rights arguments are inseparable in the worldview of most Tojolabals themselves, and to some degree her typology of class-based and indigenous-focused movements seems more academic, and imposed from the outside, rather than a real reflection of political life. However, her call at the end of the book for a resurgence of the type of political consciousness of the Zapatista movement is welcome, as is her insight into a little-known culture of the Tojolabal.