Skip Navigation


International Journal of Transitional Justice Advance Access originally published online on September 8, 2009
International Journal of Transitional Justice 2009 3(3):465-470; doi:10.1093/ijtj/ijp012
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
3/3/465    most recent
ijp012v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gonzalez-Cueva, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2009). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror, Mahmood Mamdani

Eduardo Gonzalez-Cueva

Peruvian sociologist, Americas Deputy Director, International Center for Transitional Justice, New York, USA. Email: egonzalez@ictj.org

Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror, Mahmood Mamdani. Pantheon, March 2009, 416pp. ISBN: 9780307377234 – hardcover ($32).

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Violence is difficult to discuss in that it demands the contradictory tasks of bringing about moral repudiation and rational understanding. In my work with the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I would find it almost impossible to reconcile the lofty moral discourse of the Commission's conclusions in its final report – which repudiate in the most absolute terms the atrocities committed by the Shining Path and the security forces – with the historical chapters that reconstruct in painstaking detail the internal rationale of the combatants’ strategies. What lawyers called irrational, historians and anthropologists found, actually, quite rational. And yet, this joust of disciplines never generated a real clash, for there was a common political purpose set by . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?