After reading about Oaxaca over the last couple days, this story somewhat bitters me. I see it posted all over Yahoo news.

It seems Mexico (and the world) is very proud of its indigenous past *yet* the indigenous people walking around today are here for Mexico's (and the world's) oppression.

I guess it makes exploitation a little easier if the Mexican government doesn't ever have to think about the fact that indigenous people walking around today are ancestors of a great civilization. A civilization that Mexico claims to be very, very proud of.

Strange. French people have a history, so do the Greeks. But Zapotec speaking peoples in Oaxaca?
Have they always been cheap labor? Hmmm. Maybe if we destroy most of that history, we can dig up parts of it hundreds of years later and show it off as if it is up for grabs.

NEWS UPDATE! Tlaloc proves to be trojan horse. Aztec army comes flooding out.

-----------------------------------------

Sorry for my rant. I do find the find the news exciting. I saw pictures on the net and it looks beautiful. I hope the conquistadors didn't f*** it up.

10/05/06 - 7:53 am

I don't mind your rant a bit. I think you make a great point. It's disgusting how the people of Mexico—with such a magnificent and beautiful history—are being treated and thought of...even in the face of so much evidence that they deserve respect and reverence (aside from because they are human beings!) It's the same thing with NAFTA and other policies that are geared toward turning Mexico into another colonial possession.

That you rant just shows me you still have feelings and a heart. Too many of us too often are too comfortable and easy to distract.

I think Mexico is very proud of its history. But I think there are different forces working in Mexico. And it seems to me, from afar, that one of these forces wants more than anything else to be just like America...for some strange reason. Oh, the shiny cars and all the TVs. And that they'll do anything, sell anyone, crush anything to get there. In that way, these people working for such crass commercial success at the cost of the soul of the people are just like us already.

I'll have to find some pictures and post one. I looked last night, but didn't find any. Oh, and I love your prediction/imagination of "what's behind the door"...

(Updated: the pic at bottom of post is the image of Tlaloc. If anyone is thinking of that green image going around, that is not Tlaloc, but Cihuateotl, and is being displayed in Spain...and for some reason shown in connection to this story in a few places.)

--

10.05.06 - 7:53 am

First, I have another post coming out about NAFTA, I am just waiting for the Foley thing to die down so it can get the proper exposure it really should get, since it affects a lot of people.

As for the discover, there was another discovery that was made in August. The Aztecs did fight back.

Aztecs [captured and killed] a caravan of Spanish conquistadors and local men, women and children traveling with them in revenge for the murder of Cacamatzin, king of the Aztec empire's No. 2 city of Texcoco.

Experts say the discovery proves some Aztecs did resist the conquistadors led by explorer Hernan Cortes, even though history books say most welcomed the white-skinned horsemen in the belief they were returning Aztec gods.

"This is the first place that has so much evidence there was resistance to the conquest," said archeologist Enrique Martinez, director of the dig at Calpulalpan in Tlaxcala state, near Texcoco.

"It shows it wasn't all submission. There was a fight."

I think this important it gives us a little bit more history, another piece of a puzzle that has been kept from us for a long time.

10.05.06 - 10:12 am

Word on that, XP. I know there were a great many of the Méxica who were convinced that Cortes and his killing crew were the reappearance of the Tulares, but I refuse to believe that everyone suffered Montezuma's ambivalence. I think it is damn important to have new evidence of history's truth. Lookin' forward to your post on NAFTA.

10.05.06 - 11:29 am

"After disposing of Panfilo de Narvaez, Cortes returned to the city, his ranks increased by troops from the defeated army. . . . the Aztecs planned to fall on him from ambush; but he reached the garrison in Tenochtitlan without hindrance and immdiately ordered the canons to be fired. The Aztecs responded by renewing their attack on the palace. The battles raged for four days . . .

"It soon became obvious to Cortes that he would have to abandon Tenochtitlan. He withdrew at night, but the retreat was discovered, and the Aztecs avenged themselves for the massacre in the temple patio. They attacked as the Spaniards were fleeing down the Tlacopan (now Tacuba) causeway, and the rout was so disastrous that it has been known ever since as "la noche triste," the Night of Sorrows . . . three-fourths of the army had persished in the retreat and the siege that preceded it.

". . .When the Spanish reached the canal of the Toltecs, in Tlaltecayohuacan, they hurled themselves into the water, as if they were leaping from a cliff . . . The canal was soon choked with bodies of men and horses; they filled the gap in the causeway with their own drowned bodies. Those who followed crossed to the other side by walking on corpses."

& in another account by Alva Ixtlilxochitl:

The Mexicans gave [the Spaniards] everything they needed, but when they saw that Cortes had no intention of leaving the city, they rallied their warriors and atacked the Spaniards. This attack began on the day after Cortes entered the city and lasted for seven days. On the third day, Motecuhzoma climbed onto the rooftop and tried to admonish his people, but they cursed him and shouted that he was a coward and a traitor to his country. They even threatened him with their weapons. It is said that an Indian killed him with a stone from his sling [the ancient atlatl that was still used by Great Basin Uto-Aztecan peoples in the early 20th C, sometimes pictured in the region's rock art?], but the palace servants declared that the Spaniards put him to death by stabbing him in the abdomen with their swords.

from The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico, edited by Miguel Leon-Portilla (1959, 1962 English trans.), pp. 83-90

10.05.06 - 3:49 pm

nteresting, XP, in light of the article you linked to, that Leon-Portilla writes in his Intro that:

"On several occasions the Aztecs probably could have wiped out the Spaniards to the last man - their best chance of all was on the Night of Sorrows - but the ceremonial elements in their attitude toward war ["Aztec warrriors never forgot that their first duty was to take captives to be sacrificed"] prevented them from taking full advantage of their opportunities."

10.05.06 - 4:05 pm

Great stuff, Arcturus, thanks. I don't have The Broken Spears but I do have Bernál Díaz Castillo's account,The Conquest of Mexico, and of course, he talks about La Noche Triste, too.

Reading the account, I found it frustrating how many times the Spaniards escaped defeat or more harm, due to either the treachery of certain Indians, or the kindess of certain Indians, or just blind "luck." I found it amusing, in a dark, wry sort of way how often Castillo "skipped" ahead in his writing when he got to parts that he didn't want to dwell on...like how much damage the Mexica/Aztecs did to the Spaniards before Tenochtitlán finally fell. But he said enough.

Here, I quoted a little from the book by Castillo. Here, too, with a Lieberman as Traitorous Montezuma twist.

10.05.06 - 4:32 pm

The Aztecs were despised by nearly every other native people they came into contact with. That's one reason why Cortes was able to conquer them so quickly. I wouldn't hold them up as some ideal for Mexicans. Mexicans being proud of Aztecs is about the equivalent of Hungarians being proud of the Huns. Doesn't make much sense.

10.05.06 - 11:43 pm

Sisquoc, Even if your entire family despised you, I would judge you for myself. I'm strange like that. In other words, this pariah status you say, it does not figure in anywhere to me, in my feelings or thoughts of the Aztecs.

Though I do understand from your comment that you wouldn't personally hold them up as an ideal. Consider this noted.

10.06.06 - 12:02 am

Sisquoc,

Yes, the Aztecs did have bloody wars with other indigenous tribes but I don't think that compares to conquest and colonization by Europeans. The oppression in our world is rooted in the latter conflict.

I hope for a better world, one where power is shared. I don't feel that I romanticize the Aztecs (or the Mayan civilization for that matter) but they did not destroy our world and engage in the monsterous genocides of our current global leaders. That is not to say that they had everything figured out--they were people, with all of the contradictions and complexities that that entails. They colonized people and took captives. We should be critical of that but we have a priority to break the power structure the world is subject to today.

European history was preserved. Are we not expected to be excited when reminants of a culture that was nearly decimated (and continues to be oppressed) surface?

On one hand you decry the violence visited upon native Indians by the Europeans. On the other, you select what was probably the most brutal native group as representing you. If you trace your ancestry to the Aztecs, then doing so would be understandable. If not, it sounds hypocritical. My people, the Chumash, had no desire to be conquered by anyone. Not the Spanish, not the Mexicans, and not the Aztecs. To be destroyed by one would be as bad as being destroyed by any other. That is why we took neither side during the war between America and Mexico. Neither represented us.

10.06.06 - 4:04 pm

Sisquoc, what you say makes sense. But I don't know where you read that anyone was "choosing the aztecs" to "represent us." or "me." I celebrate all the indians in Mexico. Mexica, Maya, Chumash, Toltec. I feel a kinship with all of them. Who am i to judge their battles? I don't know enough to do that. Who am I to moralize from a modern viewpoint on interactions between cultures like these that I know so little of? I feel confident decrying the violence and gold lust of the Spaniards, yes. Men who came from an entirely different continent and who came with the same greed and colonizing agenda that drives us into Iraq today, or that drove early America's Manifest Destiny.

But when it comes to intertribal fueds among tribes in America (North America/Mexico, etc), I just don't know enough, and I don't think I've claimed anywhere in my writing online that I do.

I wish, like you, I could trace my ancestry specifically. I am told by my father Nahuatl, Tarahumara, and Huichol. But he is not 100% positive of that. Really, for all I know, there is anything in my blood from Moor to Mexica.

I hope you don't continue to feel offended that I celebrate the Aztec Indians, despite your own feelings toward their tribe. It's nothing personal toward you or your family. They were an amazing and admirable people, as I'm sure yours are. I will now have to research the Chumash.

And I hope the distinctions I made between Indians' wars vs. Conquistadores' invasions eases your charge of hypocrisy. If not, I'll have to admit to being a hypocrite. I'm sure there's even worse names one could call me.

10.06.06 - 4:21 pm

I found this discovery interesting.. but come on now, where there's any talk of the Aztecs (more properly- the Mexica) they have to throw in the whole "human sacrifice" and "bloody reign" talk - which immediatley turns me off... God forbid they talk about any of the contributions or achievements of our Ancestors.

The whole point about the world overlooking the Indigenous people here today is definately valid. We Chican@s are of Indigenous descent, but many of our families do not acknowledge the "Indio" roots that we have sprouted from... Especially, those of us who have North Native American roots- we really don't talk about that (another widely-viewed extinct people). And so the other labeling comes into play, like Hispanic for instance, as oppose to a description more fitting, like the people of this land- Indigenous or in Nahuatl- Nican Tlaca..

Getting back on track though, it will be interesting to see what else they uncover and how they tie to our "blood-loving" forefathers...

10.06.06 - 4:27 pm

MWAHAHA! Brains! I neeed BRAINS! And BLOOOOOD!

I wonder how long until someone makes an Aztec Zombie horror flick? It could team up with Mel's newest exposure of the Mayan's heretofore-unappreciated bloodlust. Matinee double feature.

10.06.06 - 5:07 pm | #

Over the summer, I participated in a Nahua ceremony in an indigenous community in Mexico that included an animal sacrifice. They have been doing the ceremony for hundreds of years.

I filmed it. The Nahua people were actually pretty excited to have it on tape but, during the filming, I felt this overwhelming weight of responsibility due to the fact that grad students who were there would want the film footage for their research (some of which do not think the Nahua people are oppressed at all!). Are they going to show the film to their classes as an example of how 'bood-thirsty' the Nahua people are? How will I make sure they don't do this?

I didn't plan to use the footage for anything academic. I didn't think anyone should explain the ritual other than the Nahua people. Isn't an ethnography just a bunch of 'scholars' claiming that they know why people do what people do better than they do themselves!

Now I'm dealing with the whole "Why don't you just give me the footage because I study Nahua people and you are just some stupid Chicana who isn't working on a PhD." Of course they don't say this. It comes out as "Why don't you trust me?" "I'll give you credit for filming." "You have an obligation to give others the footage." etc. etc.

There was this 100plus-year-old Shaman (I can't remember the Nahua term for this) who pulled the head off of a bird during the ceremony. Some grad students were shocked. I don't know why--WE live in a much more bloody culture.

For some reason, I'm not strong enough to say "Look, this is a sacred ceremony. If you want it explained, maybe you should ask your million dollar university to pay for a Nahua person to come up here and talk to your class." Instead, I say "Well...I don't know...Maybe we can talk about what we learned from them and this would be better..."

Fuck. Academia is dirty.

hmmm. am i using the word wrong? does "nahuatl" refer to the language, then? i have a weak spot in my head for that, i do that with other indians' names, too vs their language. grrr.

that's so amazing, your story. i really respect that you are being so thoughtful about the footage. i know, as much as anyone, how powerful film, and media is. it's great that you're thinking ahead of time, instead of after something got out of your hands.

i wish i could see it. or in person, that would be even better.

our bloodiness is costumed and rationalized and institutionalized. theirs is genuine. and i'm betting done with purpose and respect.

10.06.06 - 7:11 pm

A friend of mine, native Southern Californian, who despised that romantic, racist Californian group, Aztlan (her mother was Pennsylvania Dutch, her father the son of Mexican immigrants) and used to cringe when those folks claimed to be "Aztec". They were as Southern Californian as she was, and more likely Tarahuma or Yaqui or Mayo or... than descended from a people who were never anywhere near SoCal. Her dad, being a marathoner, was, however, proud of his Tarahuma heritage.

"Aztecs" were the ruling class of the Mexica, specifically the warrior-knights in Tenotitchlan. We owe the confusion between that small group and the Nahua speaking peoples of Central Mexico to a French historian who made a little mistake. But, what the hey... Aztecs, like the Romans, weren't just bloodthirsty conquerors, but had their admirable virtues and high sense of honor and there's nothing wrong with claiming cultural and spiritual descent (even if the lineal descent is a bit far-fetched).

BTW, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/...88/ nahuatl.html is a basic Nahuatl grammar. I tried a self-taught Nahuatl course one time, but it was a disaster. I had a Aztec calendar appointment book, and could never keep the days straight.

10.06.06 - 7:45 pm

Richard, are you pretending to be Indian? Or is someone else using Richard's URL in the commenting form? IMPOSTERS!! Y'all DO know I can check IP addresses, right?

Whoever you are, Nehuatl notoka Kualli-yollatit, Richard, or The Invisible Mexican—don't knock romantics so quickly! Seriously, though...couldn't a family in Southern Califas have lineage that moved North from much more South on the continent? After all, I'm up near Oregon now, and my nanita lived in Mexico City. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point used to discount residents of Southern California from claiming Aztec lineage....

I'm thinking that all Peoples have had their killers and their kings, their paeons and poets and princes and pillagers. History's tricky. Whomever writes it down will have an agenda. Whomever teaches it will have an agenda. By the time it gets to you and me, we may have a tweaked story. We will, in fact. And then we will interpret it with our own agenda!

I appreciate your links and the education and anecdote. You say "Nahua speaking peoples," but then you also write "basic Nahuatl grammar." So which is it? Is the language called "Nahuatl," or "Nahua"?

10.06.06 - 8:04 pm

Thankfully, I steal my net service.

Nezua, are you practicing the patriot act over there?

Anyhoo, I don't know what the PC terminology is for Nahua and Nahuatl. I asked them and I got a few responses. Somewhat like asking a person of Mexican decent what they are--some say "Mexican American" others say "Chican@" others "Latin@" others say "people" etc. And even those people say different things at different times.

I have always thought that Nahuatl is the term for language, Nahua or Nahuatl for people. But some of them don't even call it that. There were a couple other words when I inquired about this. They had a word that meant "indigenous" (I should go look this up).

They sure didn't think Chican@s were indigenous--we were in the category as "non-indigenous" or "other"--along with Mexicans, American whites, etc. because we were not raised in the community. I don't know how to feel about this. It is a complicated issue but I'm glad it is out there to discuss. These are always the issues in the aftermath of a diaspora. Diaspora communities tend to not fit in anywhere, they are not included by anyone (more of the in-between issue).

Never! The Patriot Act is for fascists who only act like patriots!!!

I just wondered why a new name was using MexFiles URL...because I only know two people who write at the MExFiles and comment here, and they both have American names!! But eh, dunna matta. I think Richard gets on the computer with vodka or something. Or else the night just makes him loco.

Well, Luisa. I've given up on "fitting in" to any one group unless that group is made of misfits. Which I suppose those of us who toe a border (in our hearts, minds, or lives) are!

10.06.06 - 9:24 pm

OK, I'll confess. It isn't the best translation of "Richard Grabman" (literally, it comes out like the title of some weird Hallowe'en themed country-western song... "A good hearted man who knows where the bodies are buried" -- or somthin' like that.

I was just having fun with the old "blood v culture" argument. Sure, there are a few "real" Aztecs around, even a few of Montezuma's lineal descendants -- who are mostly Europeans with minor Spanish or Italian titles, and no more Aztec than I am. I kinda like the Aztecs, but they did have an awfully literal attitude towards communion!

I don't think this ... uh... tears the heart out of anyone's sense of wo they are... Tarahumas can admire the Aztec ideals as much as Irish or Poles can admire Roman ones. And, I guess the Irish can admire the Aztecs too. Or the Mexicans the Romans.

Anyway, for what it's worth, it's not only the Anglos who are bothered by Aztlan's racism.

10.07.06 - 5:18 pm

Well, now we've gone from "romantic racist group" to just plain "racist"...and from "Nehautl" to "Richard Grabman!" Way to shift the ground under my feet. You gringos are good at that.

Seriously, I didn't know "Aztlán" was a group. I thought it was the name of the Aztecs "mythical" homeland. Hunh. And even if you were "having fun with the whole blood vs culture" thing, I still don't see how a person in Southern California couldn't be of Aztec lineage any less than someone in Spain. However, my understanding this is not really a pressing issue.

Soon I'll write a post on my thoughts and feelings behind this whole "Aztlán/Reconquista" thing, so we can all have it out, you can know how I feel, and people can stop trying to slide jimmies under my (assumed) precepts.

Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense for a Mexican to admire and claim spiritual lineage to the Aztecs than I do it does an Irishman. And I think it makes a lot more sense for Mexicans to admire the Aztecs than it would the Romans, for (I hope) obvious reasons.

10.07.06 - 5:42 pm

Sorry... I think I'm confusing you. And myself.

Nahua is a language group. Nahuatl is a people and a language within the language group. If I'm wrong on this, somebody will be sure to correct me.

AZTLAN: I was thinking of a SoCal based group, "Aztlan" which gets a lot of PR from the right wing (and, I half-suspect is actually financed by them). If you look at their website, and its links, it's pretty clear they're a racist "hate group" (and are classified as one by SPLC and AntiDefamation League). This is the group that claims its ultimate goal is to reconquor the "lost territories" and the right wing just laps it up.

It's not so bad they give Lou Dobbs nightmares, but they confuse perfectly good people who have an interest in "reconquista" the way you use it (a cultural rediscovery), but have lost most ties to Mexico, and get their information from this group. THEY talk a lot about "our Aztec heritage" but mix it with anti-semitism, homophobia and plain old fashioned racism ... which aren't really a part of Mexican culture at its best.

When I was living in Mexico, I knew a couple of people from SoCal that had gone to the trouble of moving to Mexico to study their heritage... and they really hated that group. They'd get e-mails from students looking to do what they were doing, talking about being "proud Aztlan" and "Aztecs" without knowing what they were talking about. The students weren't evil or racist for the most part, just folks who were hungry for information, and got suckered into a mix of half-baked history mixed with neo-fascism.

I know I'm not the best person to do it, but I've tried over the last couple of years to at least put out some accessible English-language Mexican history -- my original target was businessmen, but maybe the students who don't want to major in Chicano Studies, but want to know the Mexican side of Mexico are the right audience. Hey, if you know anybody who wants to support me for a couple of months, I'll finish the draft.

YOUR Aztlan -- a cultural reconquest (though the crazies at Fox News will confuse that with visions of Pancho Villa crossing the border again)-- is an admirable goal. Yeah, it's a little romantic at times... but so are most cultural movements. Hurry up though... "white guy food" in Texas, for the most part, really sucks! And what passes for Mexican food is dubious

Hopefully, this'll end the "Mexican standoff". As John Wayne said ... "ya can parley with a Mescan, but ya can't win".

Oh... and of course there probably are some folks who are GEN-U-WINE Aztecs running around the U.S. But, I think being hung up on bloodlines is more a gringo -- or Spanish -- thing than a Mexican one.

It's kind of hip right now to have an Aztec name. A lot of Yuppies are naming their kids "Cuauhtemoc" or and "Iztaccihuatl" ... or "Nezahaucoatl". I knew a gay Jewish guy named Tonitiu, too. Now that'd really mess with the SoCal "Aztlans". That's what's good about Mexico -- even gay Jewish guys can be Aztecs.

10.07.06 - 9:38 pm

Richard, that is useful information. Thanks for typing that all out. I think it would be easy to conflate what I am saying with that meme that's out there. That's why writing that post will be good...for me. And for a link I can put on my sidebar so the discussion is understood, so my stance is understood.

Heh. Standoff called off.

10.07.06 - 9:45 pm

Nezua Limón Xolagrafik-Jonez,

I probably jumped too quickly to conclusions. I live near Los Angeles and it just seems that there are many of what I would call pro-Aztec activists around (and you may well live very far away from here). It strikes me as strange when these people confront others, who are usually of European descent, and tell them that this is their land, or something they consider their homeland (Aztlan). The ignorance of that attitude really eats at me. Before the Spanish came, the Los Angeles area was inhabited by the Tongvan, for many thousands of years. The Chumash lived in the upper part of coastal southern California, also for many thousands of years. Like the Tongvan, we had, and still have, our own culture, language, religion and history, which are distinct from all other native groups of California, and very different from those of the Aztecs.

As in the case of America, Mexico (or the Aztecs) also had no real right to claim what became California. They simply inherited what Spain took earlier, and essentially kept it for themselves after their war of independence. The natives of California were treated poorly by the Spanish and the Americans, but also by Mexico during its control of California. This history is well known among the Chumash, but not among many other people. The Chumash staged a revolt in 1824 against Mexican soldiers and colonialists because of abusive treatment by the latter. Soon after that, Mexico vowed that they would give us half of our land back, most of which was still held by the missions. But in fact, Mexican ranchers were given most of that land, and individual Chumash were given only a limited number of small parcels, and these pieces of land were in most cases too small to provide reliable sustenance. The ranchers were also given the most arable and valuable land. By Mexican law, Chumash were forbidden to sell the property granted to them. The choice for most was therefore to either abandon their granted property and go to work for one of the ranchers, or to attempt to subsist on minimal resources.

The Spanish took our land and gave it to the Catholic church and the Mexicans took it from the Catholic church and gave it to colonial ranchers. Then, finally, the Americans took it. I was born an American and do not hold the tragic history of the Chumash against the country. It WAS wrong for them to take it, just as it was wrong for the Spanish and Mexicans to take it before them. But every person, if they look back far enough, can find grave injustice committed against their ancestors.

I am glad to know that you might learn more about the Chumash. Like most California tribes, we weren't a warring people, and that may be why our people or history aren’t very well known. There were/are many, many other tribes in California, too. If you have a lot of time, there is plenty to learn.

10.09.06 - 1:14 am

Sisquoc, you offer valuable information. Thanks for giving your reaction a second thought. i appreciate the time and the knowledge. I will certainly learn all i can about all these peoples.

I do not hold the theft of land and abuse of Indians against any one person. and as my mother's mother's mother came here from Russia as a stowaway on a boat, I can hardly blame all of European descent as a rule. It's not reasonable.

But I will hold people accountable today for spitting out fake history, or for daring to make me feel as if I do not belong or am less than. I do have contempt for "Nativist" Americans who dare to feel this is "Thier" land due to some genocidal movement of Patriots. I do feel those who have lineage that can be traced to the indigenous population of this continent have a right to be here, regardless of laws drawn up in the name of colonial expansion or oppression, or borders that are only policed when politically expedient, otherwise being a welcome thoroughfare for cheap labor.

And there is a lot more I believe, but for this comment, that will do. Thank you again for being thoughtful.

10.09.06 - 8:40 am