Abstract
This article describes an ethnographic case in which two segments of an ethnically homogeneous population chose divergent strategies of self‐representation in the midst of a conflict over land and political power. The dispute is treated as an intra‐ethnic contest over the capacity to represent reality waged within a larger context of power whose parameters were set by national and transnational agents and institutions. The article relates these ethnographic issues to the poltics of anthropological representation, with reference to recent debates over the question of “authenticity” and the impact of anthropological truth‐claims upon the political struggles of marginalized populations, arguing that the political implications of constructionist positions are mitigated when the broader context of power relations is included in the analysis.