I admired Vanderwood's desire and ability to include details from the historical record that have no resolution. The details themselves are important, whether or not we can know the outcome.
As much as the conclusion hints at the importance of religion in daily life (and its transcendent possibilities), the book itself felt fairly flat to me--battles, intrigue, lists of people who participated and got killed. Maybe that's the only place that larger speculations and generalizations can fit in a monograph. But even with Cruz Chavez's and Teresa Urrea's statements, the bulk of the book is dry.
I'm glad I read it. It fills in some historical gaps in my knowledge of the period and the specific incidents, and also suggests that Urrea who wrote The Hummingbird's Daughter had at least some reasons for writing it the way he did.
It's good to remember that people have agency, that they make their own choices, even when circumscribed, and that they find ways to set their own priorities. Much of the Porfiriato story is about the crushing of common people and how they paid the costs of modernization. It's not that this story doesn't show that part--there's plenty of exploitation and inequality and government repression here--but it also shows people holding onto their lands in the face of strong public and private challenges, stubbornly pursuing their own religious beliefs and practice, and using distance and heritage to make their choices their own. It reaffirms the idea that historians may have to generalize about a particular time period in order to say anything about it, but that individual case studies add immensely to our understanding of the complexities of history.