What Indians say about Mestizos: A critical view of a cultural archetype of Mexican nationalism

Bull. Latin Am. Res., Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 285—301, 1998 ( 1998 Society for Latin American Studies. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0261—3050/98 $19.00#0.00

PII: S0261 - 3050(97)00068 – 5

What Indians say about Mestizos: A critical view of a cultural archetype of Mexican nationalism NATIVIDAD GUTIE¨RREZ* Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Auto´ noma de Me´ xico, Circuito Mario de la Cueva, Ciudad Universitaria, DF, 04510, Me´ xico Abstract — This article seeks to analyse the views held by indigenous people of one of the main symbols of national identity in Mexico: the mestizo. While great importance has been attached to the archetype of the mestizo, the opinions of indian peoples with regard to its appropriateness as a formula for integration have not been explored. The views collected and analysed in this article were provided by members of ethnic groups who have received a modern education. The article seeks to explore these responses in the context of the different theoretical approaches of modernisation and ethnicity as components in the contruction of nationhood. ( 1998 Society of Latin American Studies. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Mexican nationalism in the 20th century has evolved on the basis of the archetype of the mestizo: ‘We are mestizos in everything we do’ (Somos mestizos en todo) (Exce& lsior 16 August 1992). In statistical terms, allegedly ninety per cent of the total population is mestizo (Nolasco, 1988) and, in textbooks, ‘All the indigenous groups living in the country have mingled with Spaniards and Black slaves; this is why, nearly all the Mexican people are mestizo’ (Historia y Civismo, 1982: 14). Yet, the archetype of the mestizo has several angles of analysis, from those who do not ascribe any theoretical validity to the concept (Knight, 1986), to those who have exalted (Basave Benı´ tez, 1992) by emphasising both the Mexican originality of the notion (e.g. the ‘cosmic race’) and its intellectual supporters: A. Molina Enrı´ quez, J. Sierra, J. Vasconcelos, and M. Gamio. While the notion of the mestizo has dominated our understanding of the way in which social and ethnic relations have taken root in the Mexican population as a whole, little is known about the perceptions of indigenous peoples vis-a% -vis the mestizo symbology. Hardly any part of the globe has remained untouched by the re-emergence of ethnicity as one of the most effective forms of negotiation for the political recognition of non-dominant identities. The diverse opinions of ethnic peoples towards the nation-state have always been present, while specialised literature has never ceased to document the variety of expressions of ethnicity (Rex, 1996 Stavenhagen, 1996). However, it is only relatively recent that scholarly interest has focused on investigating the intellectual creativity of ethnic and marginal groups (Vesser, 1989). In the present context of ethnic mobilisations it is helpful to bear in mind that the formulation of new demands put forward by indigenous peoples, aimed at gaining protection of their natural resouces and legal recognition, is taking place within the realm of specific national sovereignties. Thus, the conceptualisation of pan-indigenist ideologies has not been the main concern of indigenous peoples since the middle of the 1980s (e.g. groups of Nahua peoples from Mexico, the Kunas of Panama, and the Miskitos in Nicaragua) (Le´ger, 1994).

286

Natividad Gutie´rrez

The articulation of specific indigenous discourse (not to be confused with indigenismo i.e. governmental policy and ideology with regards to ethnic peoples which lacks indigenous inputs) is contributing the transformation (and re-thinking) of the composition of the Latin American nation-state organised around the cultural dominion of an ethnically dominant group (i.e. mestizo people). The process of nation-formation often reveals a history of tension aroused by the accommodation of conflicting ethnicities. Despite the eager participation of the state in directing and financing the construction of an ideal type of nation (macro-ethnic collectivity), the prevalence of ethnicity shows that there are no homogeneous nations in the interdependent world of nation-states. Nation-building (or Nationdestroying) as W. Connor (1972) has put it, entails a conflictive process of accommodation and construction thus, the upsurge of ethnic tensions of different intensity is inevitable, because ethnic groups encapsulated by territorial borders are excluded, exterminated, neglected or assimilated. Cultural integration, one of the fundamental premises of a nation-state, does not take place in a vacuum; it uses, adapts and combines a plethora of symbolic material to be crystallised into a national mythology. Nation-states are unthinkable without a conflictive and multilayered cultural legacy; and the element of conflict assumes that nations are by no means static or petrified. And because conflictive ethnicities make and unmake the contours of a nation, the concept of a nation (national culture) and its normative organisation are continuously exposed to variation, re-definition and change. For those who have viewed the nation as a definitive stage of social evolution, the recurrent wave of ethnic conflict may have come as a surprise. The chief organisational purpose of nation-states has been to mould citizens and create nation-wide identification. As a result, it has operated at the cost of eroding non-dominant ethnic groups. However, I argue here that the development of nationalism, instead of achieving irrevocable assimilation through mass communications, standard education and upward social mobility (Gellner, 1983), has penetrated the self-defensive barriers of submerged ethnic groups, and that this axis formed by integrative nationalism and modernity has allowed for the emergence of segments of educated ethnic people who are advancing alternative visions of nation-states. In this article, I argue that the perpetuation of mestizo ideology has helped to neutralise and to discourage the cultural potentialities of authocthonous (and immigrant) ethnicities, by suggesting the unproblematical conciliation (both cultural and racial) of foreign and native particularities. I will seek to put forward a critical view of the mestizo symbol by using the material collected in research conducted between 1991 and 1992 among Indian peoples from different ethnic cultures of Mexico from educated backgrounds. First, I will briefly refer to the socio-ethnic characteristics of the exponents of this critical and novel discourse. Second, an analysis of the principal ideas of anti-mestizo discourse will be made and, finally, a possible scenario freed from the ideological stranglehold of the mestizo archetype will be suggested.1 THE ETHNIC INTELLIGENTSIA The imperative of re-discovering or re-adapting languages and traditions as fresh attributes of contemporary ethnic identities emerges as a powerful cultural motivation behind the increasing production of texts written in Indian languages. By analysing the emerging literary production of indigenous writers one can argue that a salient purpose of these

What Indians say about Mestizos?

287

narratives is to construct a discourse of cultural self-defence based on the re-discovery of ethnicity (King, 1991; Watanabe, 1995). Examples of new literary testimonies exhibiting, on the one hand, the possibility of writing indigenous languages using the Latin alphabet and, on the other, the interest in elaborating aspects of ethnicity based on certain inspirational criteria (e.g. landscape, traditions or political opinion) are to be found in different publishing projects founded by ethnic peoples: the Zapotec literary journal Guchachi’ Reza (1975), the Mexico City based Revista Etnias (1987), Mayao& n (1987) a regional bulletin promoting the Maya language, as well as the increasing number of regional outlets often subsidised with federal budget (e.g. Nuestra Sabidurı& a, 1992). Other publications, not edited by indigenous peoples, but containing indigenous themes (e.g. papers presented in Meetings of Writers in Indigenous Languages) are the compilations of C. Montemayor (1992), or the commercial edition by E. Burgos (1988) of the ethno-political testimony of the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize winner (i.e. Me llamo Rigoberta Menchu& ). In general, editorial projects of the kind described above mirror the vitality of ethnicity expressed in cultural or linguistic revivals and, consequently, signal an interest in promoting more literature produced by indigenous writers. Such an interest will eventually help to increase indigenous literacy rates, since one of the purposes of such projects is to reach ethnic readers. Unfortunately, statistics on indigenous education remain incomplete. However, indications that literacy rates among Indian peoples remain low is suggested by the fact that the percentage of indigenous children in 1982 not receiving primary education is higher (59 per cent), than those who apparently receive it (41 per cent) (Neumann and Cuninngham, 1984: 28). Nevertheless, two factors are helping to challenge the normative predictions of policy-makers and, thus, have facilitated the continuity (or survival) of ethnic languages. First, the access of future generations to the national language continues to be limited by the absence of educational facilities for Indian peoples as the data above suggests, and second, a new type of ethnic self-interest in the promotion of non-dominant languages is emerging.2 Indian intellectuals in Mexico constitute a very small minority. The total indigenous population is approximately ten million people, and, of that total, the intellectuals represent less than one per cent. This tiny minority, which does not necessarily launch and disseminate coordinated efforts, operates within a restricted area of influence, since their collective (or individual) activities are largely ignored and dismissed by the rest of non-Indian society. However, certain intellectuals (and their work) have seen recognised by their own societies and this has been documented in a number of regional cases: the Zapotec poetry and editorial leadership of Vı´ ctor de la Cruz in Juchita´n, Oaxaca (Campbell et al., 1993); the revitalisation of the ‘modern Maya language’ (a combination of colloquial Maya and poetic language) widely used by writers like Miguel May May, Gerardo Can Pat and Bartolome´ Alonzo Camaal (Ligorred, 1990); the organisation of and legal advice on national and international affairs for the Mixe people was the responsibility of Floriberto Dı´ az (who died in 1995) in his birthplace of Tlahuitoltepec Oaxaca (Personal communication: Sergio Sarmiento Silva, November 1997). However, not all the different ethnic Indian cultures of Mexico have their own spokesperson or cultural leadership. Furthermore, the ethnic people whom I have interviewed by no means claim to represent the whole of indigenous diversity,3 therefore, there has no attempt to formulate an ideology of ‘pan-indianism’, or to militate in favour of so-called ‘international indigenism’ (Barre, 1988; Wilmer, 1993). Interesting proposals launched by Maya primary teachers aimed at the linguistic unification of the Yucata´n Maya penı´ nsula have recently gained considerable weight, given the demographic preponderance of Maya

288

Natividad Gutie´rrez

speakers (44 per cent), an interest in reconstituting the language, and the demand for its official recognition, but the movement concerns only the regional area of Yucateco Mayas (Ligorred, 1990). Since the Maya are divided by the sovereign authority of the nations-states of Mexico, Guatemala, Belice, Honduras and El Salvador, it is very tempting to ‘imagine’ the unification of the different branches of Maya culture inhabitating Central America and eventually putting forward a project claiming the establishment of a Maya state. However, the formulation and diffusion of a ‘Pan-Mayanism’ (i.e. preliminary ideological support for a trans-territorial Maya nation-state) presents both a theoretical controversy and a practical difficulty. The theoretical controversy concerns the essence of nationhood. If we mean by nation a collectivity of people sharing in common a language, an economy, a history and a culture, the different groups of Maya people scattered over a vast geographical area would not make up a nation in the modern sense. It is not a list of attributes of nationality (i.e. an economy or a language) which makes the nation, but the degree of cohesion among the population resulting from affinity to communalities. An abundance of cultural ideas regarding the existence and origin of nations in remote times do form part of political agenda of many stateless peoples, in the same way that the idea of ‘Mexico’ took shape in the creole independentist ideologies well before the materialisation of the Mexican state (Brading, 1973). Although many ideas of nations exist, for a nation to survive, as the definition above implies, one essential component is required: people should share common ways of life, and such internal cohesion is not something which is normally achieved and reproduced spontaneously. Institutions created and financed by secular or religious agencies certainly play a major role in the popular dissemination and transmission of messages of solidarity and cohesion. And this brings us to consider the practical difficulty. The lack of indigenous institutions under one single Maya control throughout Central America is a major cause preventing the Maya from generating their own internal cohesion and mobilisation of resources. The Indian intellectual may be defined in the following terms: an individual performing a wide range of non-manual activities involving the use of his/her intellect, who has received a modern education, remains in contact with ‘modern intellectual culture’ and proposes solutions in a modern context. His/her activities deal with the theoretical, pragmatic recovery and reinforcement of his/her cultural and historical capital, and in attaining positions of leadership and authority (Aron, 1957; Shils, 1976; Matossian, 1976; Hussein, 1977). To recognise the possibility of identifying and analysing the category of ‘Indian intellectual’ and its association with the peasant world, challenges the view that rurally based people uncritically assimilate extraneous ideologies and information, or that they are immersed in inert and stagnating cultures as Feierman (1990) has suggested in his study of peasant intellectuals in Tanzania. In spite of the economic differences arising from more specialised activities or income, the peasant and the professional share the same culture and language. However, the intellectualised activities of the latter implies that they are passionately concerned with the conservation, recovery, and defence of all that they consider their cultural heritage, and for this reason they engage in activities, organisations and campaigns. I have labelled these people (i.e. my informants), the ‘intellectual’ or ‘professional’ group. These people should not be confused with the concheros or other groups claiming cultural and racial authenticity (e.g. a return to the past and the celebration of the ‘Aztec or Mexica race’) or re-inventing pre-Hispanic dances and rituals for the consumption of non-Indian

What Indians say about Mestizos?

289

societies (Iwanska, 1977; Rostas and Droogers, 1994). I have thus become acquainted with the work, and some of the views, expressed by professional individuals and students who correspond to my definition.

INDIAN INFORMANTS The indigenous discourse I have collected is basically formed by views and opinions expressed by a culturally heterogeneous group of Indian peoples from the south and central parts of Mexico, who are engaged in academic, literary or journalistic activities geared to investigating or promoting their ethnicities. The selection of this group was determined by the following criteria: place of origin, education, publications and editorial projects, participation in organisations and campaigns, and their present activities.

Place of origin The ten interviewees perceive themselves to be indigenous people, and two forms of criteria serve to illustrate this fact. The objective criteria are that: they are speakers of nonEuropean languages, maintain links with their home communities and regions, participate in festivities and undertake religious duties. The subjective criteria are that: they have knowledege of their mythological or historical ancestry and are acquainted with the distinctive cultural elements of their regions and ethnic groups. They are also aware of negative stereotypes of Indian identity (i.e. oppression, discrimination). Their average age was between 45 and 55, excluding three female interviewees, and a Tseltal informant who was 35.

Education All the interviewees have university degrees, and some of them post-graduate degrees in disciplines related to ethnicity, history and development. For example, FG (Mixtec)4 has a master’s degree in Sociology (from Benito Jua´rez University, Oaxaca); JA (Tzotzil) has studied Anthropology at post-graduate level in two American universities; and LRG (Nahua) holds similar qualifications in Archaeology and History from Mexican and European institutions; VC (Zapotec) is an editor and recognised poet, and JVR (Tzotzil) is a graduate Ethnolinguist. The rest of the interviewees, including the female ones, have training in the teaching profession, while CECH (Maya) holds a degree in Anthropology (University of Yucata´n).

Publications and editorial projects The majority of the interviewees are associated with editorial projects of an indigenous nature. FG was a founder member of Revista Etnias (1988), JA was also a founder member of the journal Nuestra Sabidurı& a (1992) of which IJE (Tseltal) and JVR (Tzotzil) are regular contributors, LRG is a member of the editorial committee of the indigenist journal Ojarasca (1991), BAC (Maya) is the editor of Mayao& n, while VC has a successful career as editorial director of the Zapoteco journal Guchachi’Reza (1975).

290

Natividad Gutie´rrez

Organisations and campaigns The groupings or associations to which my informants are related have a variety of goals, some of them are concerned with the diffusion of traditions and languages of their ethnic groups, while others are linked to wider political agenda. Some of these associations are: The National Alliance of Indigenous Bilingual Professionals (1975), The Maya House of Culture (1989), the Research Centre ‘Nuu Savi’ (1992), and the Association of Writers in Indigenous Languages (1993). Current activities The creative and productive activities of this group are diverse: most of them and their families obtain their living from academia, research and bureaucratic activities in state institutions and universities. Some of my interviewees also participate regularly in national and international seminars and congresses and are frequently in demand as consultants. Another group of potential relevance to the growth of the ethnic intelligentsia is formed by the policy, since 1977, of encouraging Indian students to pursue higher education in two specialised institutions based in Mexico City.5 Basically, these students have a background in the teaching profession or are university graduates, and approximately one hundred and sixty students are enroled each academic year. Each academic year, only ten to twelve students seeking post-graduate education are admitted onto the CIESAS course (Masters in Indoamerican ¸anguages), and ten of these completed the questionnaire for this research. This group of ten individuals consisted of nine males and one female. All of them were scholarship holders engaged in full-time study. Eight of them declared that an Indian language is their mother tongue, and the following languages were represented: Nahua, Totonaco, Chinanteco, Triqui, Chol and Tzotzil. The average age was 37. The total number of students studying for the degree in ‘Indigenous Education’ (¸icenciatura en Educacio& n Indı& gena) is 150. My sample was a third i.e. 50 students, who answered the questionnaire during their first two semesters. The sample of 50 comprised 27 females and 23 males. The ethnic composition was formed predominantly by Mixtecs, Tzotziles, Nahuas, Triquis, Zapotecs and Otomis. Only 1 out of 50 declared that Spanish was their only language. The registration requirements establish that the applicant must have experience in the teaching profession, the majority have previously worked as primary teachers. The earliest date of birth was 1952 and the latest 1966. To summarise, the responses obtained were from 10 interviews addressed to indigenous professionals and intellectuals, and 60 questionnaires were answered by 10 students taking a Masters (Maestrı& a) course and 50 from a Bsc. course (¸icenciatura). MEXICAN ARCHETYPES OF NATIONAL INDENTITY National identity is gaining scholarly attention (Smith, 1991; Billig, 1995). This growing interest demands meticulous empirical investigation in order to avoid the risk of speculative solipsism. Any serious research on nation formation has to confront the theoretical difficulty of delimiting a workable definition of ‘national identity’, since available interpretations of this notion invariably contain disparate elements. For example, is national

What Indians say about Mestizos?

291

identity the act of singing the national anthem during patriotic events? Or is it expressed in the epic murals of the post-revolution painted by celebrated artists, in the hand-made crafts of ethnic peoples, or in the archaeological sites of thousands of years ago? In an attempt to overcome the complication of handling such an imprecise notion, the mestizo archetype (as a signifier of national identity) was used in my empirical research in two interrelated ways: first, as a shared ethnic myth of nationalism evoking the unification of ‘origin and descent’ (Smith, 1984, 1986), and second, as the standard (or yardstick) of national integration according to certain sociological indicators: language (Spanish), religion (Christianity), culture (reconciliation of separate ethnic traditions) and race. The methodological significance of initiating research into the usually neglected role of ethnicity in Mexico’s modern culture of nationalism is twofold. First, as a component of nationalism, Mexican ideology displays and diffuses a message of cultural continuity emerging from an original and ancient ethnic past. Examples of such an exalted fixation with the past are the ‘creole patriotic themes’ of the late 18th century based on the revival of Aztequism (Leddy Phelan, 1960; Brading, 1973; Gutie´rrez, 1990), or the adoption of Catholic imagery (e.g. The Virgin of Guadalupe) (Lafaye, 1985); the main purpose being, as it has been widely documented, to construct widespread cultural markers helping to differentiate the emerging identity of the Mexican community from that of Spain. A contemporary example showing the importance of the past in the making of national identity, is furnished by the continuous use of ethnic symbolism conveyed in the three different collections of compulsory text-books (1960—1970; 1970—1992; 1992), as well as by the conspicuous display of cultural artefacts such as the national emblem which depicts a mythical narrative of foundation (e.g. the site of Me´xico-Tenochtitla´n) and the narrative of ethnic unification (e.g. the mestizo). These narratives originated in pre-Hispanic and colonial times and have been gradually adapted and reformulated throughout the national period of Mexico. Moreover, they are utilised by state agencies because they still provide a host of inspirational motifs and symbols through which to dispel the ethnic divisions of modern Mexico. The second reason for reconsidering past ethnicity in the fabric of nationalism is due to the recent theoretical approaches, which I call the ‘historical-culturalists’, also known as the ‘ethno-symbolists’, who have consistently argued in favour of the view that the modern nation is strongly determined by ethnic ties and a shared ethnic past (Armstrong, 1982; Smith, 1986). In sharp contrast with the culturalist view, the predominant argument of ‘modernists’ such as Gellner (1983) and Hobsbawm (1990) reveals a clear reluctance to accept that intangible (or quasi emotional) aspects such as the past, culture and language can provide sufficient evidence to explain the existence of modern nations and their corollary integrative nationalisms. The backbone of Gellner’s argument, for example, is that only ‘high cultures’ can generate internal cohesion and standard communication via the school system (Gellner, 1983). The attempt to reach consensus on the nation’s historicity is the subject of a current debate between modernists and historical-culturalists; while the former insist that the nation is the result of objective conditions (e.g. war, institutions, education, industrialisation); the historical-culturalists argue on the impossibility of constructing a community devoid of cultural and historical meaning (e.g. myths, symbols, legends, cultural revivals, art).

292

Natividad Gutie´rrez

Investigation into the history of the Mexican mestizo can add to this debate. Specifically, it can show how nationalist (non-Indian) intellectuals have made possible the construction of a broad national identity which borrows heavily from the cultural capital of ethnic indigenous groups. After all, the mestizo story is an ethnic myth of nationalist integration which is conveyed by modern means (e.g. newspapers, school textbooks, statistics). The purpose of such a convergence (ethnicity transmitted by modernity) is to come as close as possible to the nationalist ideal: to mould unified citizens. In other words, my proposition is to use complementary theoretical approaches in order to appreciate the often contradictory interplay of modernity and ethnicity in the making of nations. The primary source for the nation of the mestizo appears in the form of a myth as the process of the Spanish conquest of Mexico in 1521 began (i.e. Malinche and Herna´n Corte´s). The celebrated and romanticised encounter between the native and the Europeans has been a recurrent theme serving a major purpose: the delimitation of the national culture of Mexico. This ethnic narrative has been successfully transformed into a national myth partly because little is known about the female protagonist (Malinche). Information about her comes from the brief comments made by the chronicle of Bernal Dı´ az del Castillo commenting on her biography, or in the letters of Herna´n Corte´s to Charles V, referring to her as ‘the tongue’ (presumably because her bilingual abilities facilitated the demise of the Aztecs) (Glantz, 1994). Notwithstanding the popularisation of pejorative connotations associated with origin of mixed descent throughout the colonial caste system (mestizo was a synonym of bastardy inasmuch as s/he was the result of male Spanish and African coercion towards the female indigenous population) (Morner, 1967; Seed, 1980), the myth (a cocktail of fact, fantasy and legend) remains as the inspirational motive of the nationalist ideology based upon a common, but indisputably fictitious, ethnic origin. In effect, the mestizo population of the modern nation is not an objective sociological phenomenon because it emphasises only the typical racial structure of the colonial period, based on the interbreeding of Europeans, Indians and Africans. Immigration, assimilation, mortality, as well as emerging complex patterns of intermarriage throughout the colonial and national periods, between old and new settlers, have blurred the Hispanic and indigenous boundaries of this idealised origin (Gutie´rrez, 1995). The Mexican mestizo is so overwhelmingly significant that the phenomenon has inspired, as I pointed out at the beginning, several angles of analysis. At least two areas of study run parallel and exert influence upon each other. On the one hand, there is the vast documentation of the cultural and social history of the mestizo population which refers to its sociological and anthropological impact in the configuration of rural communities, regional cultures, and urban ways of life (Herna´ndez and Narro, 1987; Bartra, 1987; Lomnitz-Adler, 1992). On the other hand, there is the transformation of the mestizo system of values and ways of life into an ideology to promote nationalism. The mestizo is seen to epitomise the ‘intermediate’ type of Mexican. While its demographic superiority, already noticeable by the 17th century (Morner, 1967), carries weight in such an assumption, the literature produced by the ‘Mexican School of Anthropology’ has done much to give the mestizo a central place in the categorisation of the Mexican population from the early 20th century onwards. For example, Manuel Gamio (1883—1960) and Gonzalo Aguirre Beltra´n (b. 1908), among many others, were basically concerned with the lack of a ‘coherent’ and ‘homogeneous’ nation in which positivistic ideas of progress could take root. The predominance of the mestizo came thus to symbolise the desirable socio-cultural features of the national population (i.e. Spanish language, adoption of

What Indians say about Mestizos?

293

Western values and culture, urbanism and industrialisation). Gamio particularly refered to implementing a programme of ‘Mexicanisation’ (or mestizoism) to be undertaken by the state in order to close the gaps between ‘a less efficient population of intermediate culture (Indian peoples) and an efficient population of modern culture (mestizo population)’ (Gamio, 1985). A similar dichotomous approach is to be found in Aguirre’s view of ‘Regions of refuge’. In these remote ethnic environments a ‘colonial situation’, situation inaccesible to modernisation, still persists, characterised by the coexistence of the dominant ladino or mestizo groups and the indigenous populations. The latter ‘groups retain their old values, customs and behaviour norms’ and ‘appear to be the most backward section of the national population. Thus, they are subject to subjugation and exploitation by the technically and economically more developed groups’ (Aguirre Beltra´n, 1979: 23—24). The theoretical models of the above type emphasised the importance of inducing ‘cultural change’ and ‘acculturation’ and some of the pragmatic projects stressing the substitution of Indian-ness by Mexicanisation were known as ‘the cultural missions’ (1925), ‘the rural school movement’ (1933), ‘the Linguistic Summer Institute’ (1935) and ‘the Coordinating Centres of the National Indigenist Institute’ conceptualised by Aguirre Beltra´n which have remained in operation up to the present. These projects, conceived as mechanisms to protect, ‘civilise’ and integrate the Indian masses in relation to the mestizo archetype conform the body of ideas of the Mexican policy of indigenism (indigenismo). The Mexican project of nation-building is addressed and substantiated by the specific policies and ideologies of mestizaje and indigenismo. Mestizaje in the context of nationmaking is a 20th century post-revolutionary ideology. Its reformulation contains ideas and processes of the colonial and early national periods, and it aims at inspiring a collective sense of shared identity by encouraging a reciprocal contribution of disconnected cultural traditions (European and indigenous), aided by state agencies. What matters then, in this discussion, is to try to understand some of the reasons which explain the excessive valorisation of mestizoism. Contradiction and ambivalence between the native and the foreigner, the parochial and the cosmopolitan, the masses and the intellectuals are themes which have always been at the core of nationalist ideologies. Mexican nationalism, making its first appearance as a movement for political independence (1810—1821) and later as a nation-building project (19th to 20th centuries), has constantly exhibited such a dilemma. The emergence of Mexico as a shapeless ethnic community acting politically in the modern interdependent world has been resolved by fabricating a balanced formula to overcome the so-called inferiority of the authocthonous, while struggling to retain a degree of cultural originality within the overpowering Western context. This formula reveals an Hispanicist bias of Mexico’s dominant cultural structure, because the development of mestizaje is not necessarily a reflection of cultural collaboration and reciprocity among the dominant and minority peoples, as its modern ideologues have tried to claim. The mestizo archetype as interpreted by Indian peoples has remained obscure. There are two possible explanations for this: First, the belief that cultural miscegenation is a benevolent process which includes the incorporation of the Indian, at the same level as the European, and second, the assumption that Indians have nothing to say. Some analysts and the public in general still entertain the view that ethnic groups, since colonial times, have been at the edge of extinction or in a cultural limbo as the result of their unsuccessful acculturation into the dominant patterns and thus, meagrely reproducing a ‘negative identity’ (Friedlander, 1975).

294

Natividad Gutie´rrez

I will refer next to the construction of a methodology which has allowed me to investigate the subjectivity of Indian peoples in relation to the main ethnic ideas of nationhood discussed in this article. In this way the significance of the mestizo concept for these peoples can be explored.

METHODOLOGY AND NATIONALISM A questionnaire and a list of semi-structured interviews specifically designed for this research helped me to collect the kind of data which could reflect the experience of sub-merged ethnic groups and to explore some of their views concerning cultural proposals for their survival. Such methodological instruments comprised three parts: 1. Ethnic background, 2. Opinions and Perceptions of Nationalism and 3. Contemporary Indian Identity. I shall only refer here to the specific area of the research aimed at testing the relevance of the mestizo myth. My first aim was to find out if my informants were familiar with such a myth or narrative. In order to confirm this information, I asked them to mention the historical period from which the narrative emerged and the social factors involved (e.g. race, class, gender). Secondly, I asked them to report how they obtained this information. Thirdly, since this myth occupies a place of prominence in the configuration of the nationalist discourse, I asked them to describe, in their own terms, three contributions of mestizaje with respect to the society as a whole. In relation to the latter question, I prompted them to state whether this myth was a reality, a policy, an ideology or an invention and to give their reasons for their selection. In an attempt to further explore Indian’s evaluation of the mestizo character, I included two more questions: to provide a definition of the socio-cultural personality of a mestizo person based on their daily practice, perception and experience; and if they have or would be able to establish family or friendly relations with members of the non-Indian society. From the results of these answers and according to my informants, the archetype of the mestizo represents: first, a rejection of a shared ethnic and biological origin, second, a state of permanent conflict and tension, and third, a process of cultural appropriation.

THE MES¹IZOS AS SEEN BY THE INDIANS The mestizo myth of origin does not enjoy the privilege of having resulted from noble pedigree. The rape of Indian women symbolising colonial domination, and the Malinchista betrayal (female preference for male white-ness) (Lafaye, 1985), are regarded as the chief ideas impeding, according to my informants, the wholehearted acceptance of the mestizo origin. My informants expressed this view in the form of open rejection as stated by the professionals, or a state of confusion and uncertainty in the case of the students.

Rejection of a shared ethnic origin The opinion of professionals suggest that they have made a careful evaluation of their distinctive origin, derived from education or personal enquiries. They know their ethnocentric origin:

What Indians say about Mestizos?

295

The Mesoamerican idea of emerging from caves as stated by LR (Tlaxcala), a Nahua historian: In the search of Aztla´n, the Aztecs arrived at ‘Chicomostoc’ (Place of Caves), the analogy being is that on re-merging from these caves they were re-born, as a consequence of this re-birth they ceased to be Aztecs and became the Mexica people or the Mexitin From a goodness-woman-tree in the Mixteca Region: I, as a Mixteco, do not have trouble with my origins. We have our own. In my village everybody knows that we descend from a goddess-woman-tree, and I knew that before my eyes saw the Vindobonensis Codex and the narrative on the Apoala Tree. I know my origins, regarding the myth of origin of the others, I just do not know and that does not worry me (FG Oaxaca). The Binnigula’sa’ (people of clouds) according to the Isthmus Zapotec: Our origin is explained by the myth of the Binnigula’sa’, who were our distant ancestors, the founders of the Zapoteco people (VC Oaxaca). Or the Maya from the divine caste of the Xiu: Mestizaje is something alien to us, because we have the history of our own origin. Through the Chichen-Itza´ records, we know we descend from the Xiu who came somewhere from the centre (CECH Yucata´n). What is the importance for Indian peoples of knowing their own ethnic origin? In which way can the prevalence of this information affect or challenge the nationalist fabric? Two interrelated answers can be provided. The first favours the endurance of ethnic localised identities; the second questions the degree of identification a national identity is capable of providing. During my investigation I came across several views (and writings of the kind described above) pointing out the importance of re-discovering and collecting ethnic primordialist information. A certain interest in recovering this information suggests that my interviewees are acquainted with a specialised area of knowledge restricted to the expert in Archaeology or ancient Mesoamerican history. The possession of this information may contain potent ideas for the recovery of identity. The ethnic professionals, unlike the Indian students, possess this information as a result of their individual search for discovering the origin of the group to which they belong; not necessarily because this knowledge is continuously repeated or recycled within the community and thus, reproducing generation after generation, a coherent form of shared ethnic identity based on ancient mythology (‘It is sad to say this, but at present many Maya people do not know where they come from’ MLGP Maya). In other words, students do not know their specific ethnic origin because this information is not widely accesible to them; they learn that their origin is symbolised by the mestizo model according to standardised teaching at school. Such information reveals the degree of cultural subordination experienced by Indian peoples within modern nation-states. This subordination is aggravated by the territorial complexity of the indigenous world of Mexico. The Indian peoples of the country are divided into 56 ethnic groups, and each of these groups is fragmented into a collection of communities or pueblos (which represent 28.2 per cent of the total number of 156,602 towns) (Instituto Nacional Indigenista, 1993). The Yucateco Maya, the Kikapu´ in Coahuila, or the Mayo in Sinaloa are also fragmented in pueblos, but they inhabit a single territory and do

296

Natividad Gutie´rrez

not share it with any other ethnic groups; while the rest of the indigenous peoples, apart from their dispersion into small communities, share territory with more than one group (e.g. Chiapas is the homeland of 14 different ethnic groups), or a single group is to be found in more than one state (e.g. the Nahua people inhabit 10 states of the Mexican Republic). Under these circumstances ethnic peoples face a formidable problem: how to promote the circulation and transmission of their own ethnic information in order to engender internal cohesion and bring together the whole of the ethnic group dispersed into communities. The national government and its indigenist policy have greatly contributed to emphasising such fragmentation which partly explains the extent of the indigenous cultural subordination refered to above. For example, the materialisation of internal cohesion strongly depends on the availability of certain important means of cultural dissemination outside the control of Indian peoples (i.e. media, ethnic schools and curricula, ethnic textbooks, liturgy). Let us refer now to the results from the postgraduate students (whose average age at the time of the research was 30 and, who, therefore, have been exposed to a standardised system of education since the 1960s). For them, the idea of origin as suggested by miscegenation is manifested in terms of uncertainty, but to manifest doubts about the relevance of this narrative does not necessarily mean that the students embrace the mestizo concept as the demarcation of their ethnic origin. Some examples: (1) ‘It imposes the teaching of the Spanish language’. (2) ‘It is a belief in cultural superiority’. (3) ‘It proposes cultural and linguistic unification’. (Source: ¸icenciatura en Educacio& n Indı& gena, henceforth: LEI Questionnaire) Thus it seems that the students have no choice of identity given that the main filter of collective information, the national school, has been careful to avoid transmitting ethnic knowledge. Instead, the school encourages students to learn to be mestizo. Men and women, Indians and Spaniards also mixed and from them were born the mestizo people, from whom the Mexicans of today descend (Mi libro de historia 3rd grade, 1970). A state of permanent ethnic conflict Indigenous peoples’ experience of permanent conflict, as a result of the imposition of mestizaje, was expressed in a wide range of opinion. For example, I collected views from the professional group, which indicated that the ideology of the mestizo denotes a strong sense of racial discrimination and rejection of Indian-ness (MRPJ Tojolabal, Chiapas). Others expressed the view that the mestizo people regard themselves as culturally superior to the Indians, thus justifying the perpetuation of injustice. (FG Mixteco, Oaxaca). Other perceptions noted the feeling of exclusion from the nation-building process and identify mestizaje as a recent ideology of the state (LR Nahua, Tlaxcala). The students in their turn stated a collective view that mestizaje is an ideology of discrimination and a policy of assimilation which sought the abandonment of their cultures and languages. (1) ‘It is a kind of racism used by the powerful people’. (2) ‘It is a discriminatory ideology against the Indian people’. (3) ‘We are discriminated against by people of another race and culture’.

What Indians say about Mestizos?

297

A process of cultural appropriation The final opinion and, in my view, the most significant one in terms of overall nationformation, is the notion that mestizaje is nothing less than the appropriation of Indian knowledge and traditions. The professional group manifested an overwhelming dissatisfaction and reached agreement on the following view: when Indian knowledge is usurped, uprooted from its original context, and transformed into an item of consumerism acceptable for the non-Indian society, that is what is called mestizaje. According to this opinion, the Indian per se is not accepted in the social fabric, and the manifestation of indigenous cultural contributions, without the dominant participation of a mestizo’s point of view, is discouraged. It has been widely argued that Indianness has been appropriated in the search for national originality (Villoro, 1950; Benı´ tez, 1968; Friedlander, 1975): what requires further investigation is how such an appropriation invalidates the autonomous expression of ethnicity. In any case when there are identifiable contributions, non-Indian society takes the benefits. In this sense, these contributions have selected to favour only a part of the society; it is a question of cultural convenience which does not benefit Indian people at all (BAC Maya, Yucata´n). The students pointed out the regular experience of facing a situation in which their cultures are appropriated by official ideology. For example: Mestizaje does not make any contribution, on the contrary it appropriates the existing Indian cultural elements in order to make a sort of a fusion with the dominant culture (LEI Questionnaire). They also noted how school textbooks praise the mestizo, encourage students to identify with the archetype of national-building, whilst the textbooks contain practically no positive information of Indians in daily-life contexts, so that mestizo pupils could also learn from the double process of cultural conciliation and not fix their attention only on so-called ‘glories of the past’. The following views are revealing: (1) ‘The treatment we receive in the textbooks portrays us as illiterate and non-cultured peoples’. (2) ‘The ethnic groups are studied as things of the past, not as living peoples’. (3) ‘The content of the books take the view that the mestizo is superior to us’. When the students were asked to report their opinions about the contributions of mestizaje to the Indian and non-Indian societies, it was interesting to note that over half of the completed questionnaires did not answer this section. In other words, they were reluctant to identify any positive contribution as a result of replacing Spanish as the lingua franca or of adopting the national mestizaje instead of loyalty to local ethnicities. Only six members out of a total sample of 60 informants, however, declared that mestizaje brought positive contributions towards language and communication, while seven declared that it did not make any contribution at all. The mestizo individual is seen as the character who benefits from the appropriation of Indian culture and history; some informants stated that mestizos lack history. For example: Mestizaje, as a sentiment of belonging, of those wishing to take over a history which does not belong to them, does not have real heirs. That is to say, how can a poor Indian

298

Natividad Gutie´rrez

entertain the idea of descending from a Spaniard. This is just absurd (FG Mixteco, Oaxaca). Therefore, the so-called merging of traditions is in fact nonexistent. Furthermore, mestizaje was identified as an ideology of discrimination, overstating a false sense of superiority and exclusively concerned with the propagation of the hispanicbias. Indigenous educated people have constructed a discourse critical of official nationalism and some expressions of ethnic identities do persist. However, these manifestations of identity are by no means crystallized into ethno-political projects seeking separation from the state. The demands and campaigns with which my informants have been involved aim at finding accessible channels within the state bureaucracy to accommodate their own projects of cultural rehabilitation and management of their ethnic affairs. An overall interpretation of the process of constructing a national identity in a multiethnic society implies bearing two extremes in mind: on the one hand, minority peoples are gaining unprecedented cultural strength and public recognition. Examples illustrating this recent situation are: indigenous accesibility to the media; the reformulation of article four of the Mexican constitution concerning recognition or protection of native peoples as a result of Mexico’s ratification of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation in 1991; the international efforts addressed to national governments regarding the protection of human and ethnic rights, and the distribution of development grants to improve the living conditions of indigenous peoples (‘ILO Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries’ (169), 1989; and the UNU declaration of the ‘International Year for the World’s Indigenous Peoples’, 1993). These legally-recognised procedures have gradually helped indigenous peoples to challenge and transform the exclusionary structure of the nation-state. On the other hand, prevalent notions of macrocollective identity (i.e. a common identity for all ethnic groups), lack the resilience, comprehensiveness or adaptability that would permit the inclusion of a collection of disparate ethnic peoples. Indigenous peoples’ reluctance to embrace the main national archetype of the mestizo as a symbol of contemporary identity is a case in point. This conclusion might not apply in the case of the mestizo population’s reponse to mestizo symbology, or with respect to the many other immigrant groups settled in the country. These are aspects of Mexico’s ethnicity which clearly demand further research.

MEXICO WITHOUT MES¹IZOS? Mestizaje is neither an overwhelming biological reality (i.e. male foreigner and female Indian), nor a complementary exchange of cultural traditions, but an ideological product of the state. The function of mestizaje throughout the nation-building process has been to aid the integration of Mexico’s ethnic diversity. Paradoxically, native ethnicities have not metamorphosed into expressions of mestizaje, but instead the ideology has allowed for the creation of a pervasive negative sense of cultural and racial inferiority among Indian peoples, combined with sentiments of exclusion only after a process of cultural appropriation has been carried out. The construction of a theoretical framework explaining the unprecedented role of ethnic intellectuals and their gradual demands against the centralisation of national development, or even against the manipulation of non-Indian leaders and ideologues, is of unparalleled significance. The analysis of their opinions and the observation of some of their practical

What Indians say about Mestizos?

299

activities (e.g. the revitalisation of languages and the printing press), indicates the gradual obsolesence of the ideologies of indigenismo and mestizaje. These are the systems of beliefs which have obstructed the independent development of an indigenous thought and, consequently, have arbitrarily fixed the content of Mexico’s nationalist archetypes. To put it simply, the more there is indigenismo, the less there is room for indigenous self-sufficiency and control. Mestizaje has been the ideology of post-revolutionary Mexico, but it has now passed its hey-day. It is time now to start critically addressing the socio-political impact of this policy of assimilation into the present ethnic diversity (Bonfil Batalla, 1987). One way of doing this is to highlight the bias present in the concept and to put an end to the endless praise of the so-called congenial formula of the ‘cosmic race’. Mestizaje has not got rid of ethnicities, and probably never will. It has contributed, however, to their marginalisation. According to the perceptions of my informants, the official propagation of nationalist mythology is unable to take firm root in the indigenous contemporary identities. Thus we are gradually confronting the fact that collective (national) identities can no longer be conceptualised universally and predictably. Identities are subjective and historically constructed, and they contain conflictive layers of ethnic friction with familiar meaning only for some peoples in given conditions (e.g. ‘The textbooks give importance only to the study of the history of the centre, such books say nothing of our own history. For us, the study of the War of Castes is more important than the Mexican Revolution, because our Mayan history venerates the repression and suffering of the 19th century war of Yucata´n’ CECH Maya, Yucata´n). The realisation of multiculturalism, and in particular, the construction of a Mexican polyethnic nation-state, as heralded by the amendment to the 1991 Article Four of the Mexican Constitution, should begin by looking analytically at the rigidity of this national archetype. The task does not entail, however, a simple substitution. The mestizo people are part of Mexico, and thus, there is unquestionable validity to a nationalist mythology. But to continue assuming its predominance is to exclude the participation of Amerindian peoples from the political and cultural scenario. After all, indigenous peoples (and some other immigrant groups) also have their cultural roots in Mexico. Acknowledgements — This article is derived from an earlier version of a paper delivered at the conference ‘Ways of Working in Latin American Studies’ (King’s College and Institute of Latin American Studies, University of London) (6 April 1995). I am grateful to Professor Javier Vilaltella (Universitat Munchen), Professor Martin Lienhard (Universitat Zurich) and Francesc Ligorred (Universidad Auto´noma de Yucata´n) for their stimulating comments.

REFERENCES Aguirre Beltra´n, G. (1979) Regions of Refuge. The Society for Applied Anthropology, New York. Armstrong, J. A. (1982), Nations Before Nationalism. University of California Press, Chapel Hill. Aron, R. (1957), ¹he Opium of the Intellectuals. Secker and Warburg, London. Barre, M. C. (1988), Ideologı& as indigenistas y movimientos indios, 3rd edn, Siglo XXI. Mexico City . Bartra, R. (1987) ¸a jaula de la melancolı& a; identidad y metamorfo& sis del mexicano. Nueva Imagen, Mexico City. Basave Benı´ tez, A. (1992), Me& xico mestizo; ana& lisis del nacionalismo mexicano en torno a la mestizofilia de Andre& s Molina Enrı& quez. Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica, Mexico City. Benı´ tez, F. (1968) ¸os indios de Me& xico. FCE, Mexico City. Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. Sage Publications, London. Bonfil Batalla, G. (1987) Me& xico Profundo: una civilizacio& n negada. CIESAS SEP, Mexico City. Brading, D. (1973) ¸os origenes del nacionalismo mexicano. Setentas, Mexico City.

300

Natividad Gutie´rrez

Brading, D. (1991) ¹he First America; ¹he Spanish Monarchy, Creole Patriots and the ¸iberal State 1492—1866. Cambridge University Press. Burgos, E. (1988) Me llamo Rigoberta Menchu& y ası& me nacio& la conciencia, 4th edn. Siglo XXI. Mexico City. Campbell, H. et al. (1993) Zapotec Struggles: Histories, Politics and Representation from Juchita& n, Oaxaca. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. Comisio´n Nacional de Libros de Texto Gratuitos (1960—1979) Mi libro de quinto anJ o Historia y Civismo); (1970—1990) Ciencias Sociales 3rd to 6th grade); (1992) Mi libro de historia de Me& xico 5th to 6th grade). Talleres de la Comisio´n de Libros de Texto Gratuitos, Mexico City. Connor, W. (1972) Nation-building or Nation-destroying? ¼orld Politics 24, 319—355. Feierman, S. (1990) Peasant Intellectuals; Anthropology and History in ¹anzania. University of Wisconsin Press. Friedlander, J. (1975) Being Indian in Hueyapan; A Study of Forced Identity in Contemporary Mexico. St Martin’s Press, New York. Gamio, M. (1985) Antologı& a. Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´ xico, Mexico City. Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. Glantz, M. (1994) ¸a malinche, sus padres y sus hijos. Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Mexico, City. Gutie´rrez, N. (1990) Memoria indı´ gena en el nacionalismo precursor de Me´xico y Peru´. Estudios Interdisciplinarios de Ame´ rica Latina y el Caribe 1(2), 99—113. Gutie´rrez, N. (1995) The Culture of the Nation: The Ethnic Past and Official Nationalism in 20th Century Mexico (PhD Thesis) The London School of Economics, University of London. Gutie´rrez, N. (1995a) Miscegenation for Nation-building: Indian and Immigrant Women in Mexico. ºnsettling Settler Societies, eds. D. Stasiulis and N. Yuval-Davis. Sage Publications, London. Gutie´rrez, N. (1995) Indians without Patria: The claims for autonomy of the Zapatista Revolt in Mexico. ¹he ASEN Bulletin 9, 18—23. Herna´ndez M. A. and Narro R. L. (eds) (1987) Co& mo somos los mexicanos. Centro de Estudios Educativos. CREA, Mexico City. Hobsbawm, E. J. (1990) Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth and Reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hussein Alatas, S. (1977) Intellectuals in Developing Societies. Frank Cass, London. Instituto Nacional Indigenista (1993) Indicadores econo& micos de los pueblos indı& genas de Me& xico. INI, Mexico City. Iwanska, A. (1977), ¹he ¹ruths of the Others: An Essay on Nativistic Intellectuals in Mexico. Schenkman Cambridge, Mass. King, A. D. (1991) (ed) Culture, Globalization and the ¼orld-System. Macmillan, London. Knight, A. (1986) ¹he Mexican Revolution, 2 Vols. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lafaye, J. (1985) Quetzalco& atl and Guadalupe; la formacio& n de la conciencia nacional en Me& xico, 2nd edn. Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica, Mexico City. Le´ger, M. (1994) Aboriginal Peoples; ¹oward Self-Government. Black Rose Books, Montreal, New York, London. Leddy Phelan, J. (1960) Neo-Aztecism in the Nineetenth Century and the Genesis of Mexican Nationalism. In Culture and History, Stanley D. (ed). Columbia University Press, New York. Lomnitz-Adler, C. (1992) Exits from the ¸aberynth; Culture and Ideology in the Mexican National Space. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford. Ligorred, F. (1990) Consideraciones sobre la literatura oral de los mayas modernos. INAH-Consejo Naciona l para la Cultura y las Artes, Col. Cientı´ fica, Mexico City. Ligorred, F. (1992) ¸enguas indı& genas de Me& xico y Centroame& rica. Mapfre, Madrid. Matossian, M. (1976) Ideologies of delayed industrialization; some tensions and ambiguities. In Political Change in ºnderdeveloped Countries, Kautsky J. (ed). Krieger, New York. Montemayor, C. (1992) (ed) ¸os escritores indı& genas actuales, Fondo Editorial Tierra Adentro, Mexico City. Morner, M. (1967) Race Mixture in the History of ¸atin America. Little Brown, Boston. Neuman, P. and Cunningham, M. (1984) Mexico’s free text-books: Nationalism and the urgency to educate. World Bank Staff Working Papers (541), The World Bank, Washington. Nolasco, M. (1988) Los indios de Me´xico, Polı& tica cultural para un pa! s multie& tnico. R. Stavenhagen and M. Nolasco (eds). SEP, Mexico City. Noriega Elio, C. (1992) El nacionalismo en Me& xico. El Colegio de Michoaca´n, Zamora. Rex, J. (1996) Ethnic Minorities in the Modern Nation-State. Macmillan, London and New York. Rostas, S. and Droogers, A. (1994) (eds) ¹he Popular ºse of Popular Religion in ¸atin America. Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation, Amsterdam.

What Indians say about Mestizos?

301

Seed, P. (1980) ¹o ¸ove, Honor and Obey in Mexico; Conflicts Over Marriage Choice 1524—1821. Stanford University Press. Shils, E. (1976) The Intellectuals in the Political Development of the New States, Political Change in ºnderdeveloped Countries, Kautsky J. (ed). Krieger, New York. Smith, A. D. (1984) National Identity and Myths of Ethnic Descent. Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change 7, 95—130. Smith, A. D. (1986) ¹he Ethnic Origins of Nations. Blackwell, Oxford. Smith, A. D. (1991) National Identity. Penguin, Harmonsdsworth. Stavenhagen, R. (1996) Ethnic conflicts and the Nation-State. Macmillan, London. Vesser, A. H. (1989) (ed) ¹he New Historicism. Routledge, New York and London. Villoro, L. (1950) ¸os grandes momentos del indigenismo mexicano. El Colegio de Me´xico, Mexico City. Watanabe, J. M. (1995) Unimagining the Maya: Anthropologists, others, and the inescapable hubris of authorship. Bulletin of ¸atin American Research 14(1), 25—45. Wilmer, F. (1993) ¹he Indigenous »oice in ¼orld Politics. Sage Publications, London.