Academic Origins of Major
Ideas
(with academic citations)
This list shows that many important concepts can be traced back with academic
references.
Nican Tlaca:
The term Nican Tlaca has been a part of the historical record for nearly 500 years.
The term Nican Tlaca can be
definitively shown to have originated around the mid-1500's and was used well into the 1600's. No individual can be identified as its originator. The term seems to have originated as a way to differentiate Indigenous People from Spaniards/Europeans. In 1992, with the
publication of The Nahuas After the
Conquest, James Lockhart
re-introduced the term via scholarship and affirmed it as being synonymous with “indigenous
people”. Thereafter, the term has been adopted by other people (e.g. Mexica Movement, Nican Tlaca Voices Radio Show, Nican Tlaca metal-music band, Nican Tlaca University of Cemanahuac) and
applied towards different purposes.
Below are the earliest academic sources
in which we find the term Nican Tlaca.
1. Florentine Codex, Chapter 12
(mid-1500s A.D.)
Chapter Twelve of The Florentine
Codex documents dialogue exchanges between colonizing Spaniards
and the Indigenous people they encountered in Central Mexico. The
term Nican Tlaca appears along with other terms like Nican
tlalli (“the land here”) and Nican Mexico
(“Mexico here”).
The term also show up in Sahagun's Primeros Memoriales as well as numerous colonial documents (e.g. wills, testaments, chronicles, etc.)
2. James Lockhart (1992)
On page 641 of his book The Nahuas
After the Conquest: A
Social and Cultural History
of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth
Through Eighteenth Centuries,
historian James Lockhart acknowledges that Nican Tlaca
is a “term for indigenous people” (Lockhart, 1992, p. 641).
A small segment from page 641 of James
Lockhart's 1992 book showing Nican Tlaca as being equated with
a “term for indigenous people”. (Lockart would assert the same
meaning to Nican Tlaca in his next book in 1993).
Lockhart observes
through archival documents that most colonized Indigenous people did
not adopt the term indio, but rather, opted for alternative
terms like Nican Titlaca, Nican Tlaca, or Nican
Itoca in order to express their identity (Lockhart, 1992, p.
115). Lockhart fails to explain the etymological connection between
Nican Titlaca and Nican Tlaca, although it is clear
that the two terms are related and represent an evolving use
throughout early Colonial Mexico.
Furthermore, another term –
macehualli – was also a stand-in term meaning “the people”
or “the common people”, in contradistinction to “nobles”
(Lockhart, 1992, p. 115).
Lockhart states an important difference
between Nican Tlaca and Macehualli (or macehualtin,
plural) is that, “The collective machehualtin was more
neutral”, as opposed to the more personal and conscious term Nican
Tlaca (Lockhart, 1992, p. 116).
But the term Nican Tlaca is
problematic if it is taken to mean “we people here”, since that
meaning would be more accurately assigned to the term Nican
Titlaca. Linguistically speaking, it appears that the term Nican Titlaca is the
original term, from which Nican Tlaca was derived, either by
social convention or some unknown decision by elites.
It would seem then, that Nican
Titlaca is the more “etymologically / grammatically correct”
term for expressing personal-possessive identity, even though
“linguistic evolution” morphed the term into Nican Tlaca.
3.
James Lockhart (1993)
On page 331 of his book We People
Here: Nahuatl Accounts of the Conquest of Mexico, historian James
Lockhart acknowledges that Nican Tlaca is a “term
for indigenous people” (Lockhart, 1993, p. 331).
Seen above: a small segment from page 331 of James
Lockhart's 1993 book showing Nican Tlaca as being equated with
a “term for indigenous people”.
On page iv of his book, Lockhart
prefaces the historical dialogues in his book with some examples of
how Nican Tlaca – and some interesting
variations/transpositions of the term – are found within Chapter
Twelve of The Florentine Codex (Lockhart,
p. iv,
1993).
Lockhart's book specifically examines
Chapter Twelve of The Florentine Codex, a 16th-century Spanish
ethnography.
The term Nican Tlaca has been a part of the historical record for nearly 500 years.
4. John F. Schwaller (1993)
In his 1993 academic peer review of
James Lockhart's book The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and
Cultural History of the
Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth
through Eighteenth Centuries., Schwaller
addresses the 16th
century origins of the term Nican Tlaca:
“Likewise the natives did not call
themselves Indians, and in fact it was not until
nearly a half
century after the conquest that any term arose to describe the
natives
to themselves, usually appearing as Nican Tlaca
[emphasis added]” (Schwaller, 1993,
p. 762).
5. Stafford Poole (1995)
In his book
Our Lady of Guadalupe: The Origins and Sources of a Mexican National Symbol 1531-1797, historian Stafford Poole notes that
the term Nican Tlaca was being used well into the 1600s. In particular, the term shows up in a written account of "Indian miracles" claimed to come from "The Virgin":
"The story of the Indian miraculously restored to life at the time of the dedication parade contains no Spanish loan words and uses the older term nican tlaca for natives (Poole, 1995, p. 122).
(Note: Poole's book deals with "La Virgen de Tepeyac" and debunks the entire "Juan Diego appearance" story by showing how no official records exist for the story with the local Catholic Bishop during the years the event was claimed to occur.)
Also in 1995, in his review of James Lockhart's book
We People Here: Nahuatl Accounts of the Conquest of Mexico, Poole makes a reference to the usage of the term
Nican Tlaca:
“The "people here" (nican
tlaca) also showed relatively little interest in the Spaniards as such” (Poole, 1995, p. 225).
6. Susan M. Steele (1976)
A linguist by training, Steele
translates what she calls “Classical Aztec” language. Among her
many translations is the term Nican Tlaca which she translates
quite literally as “here
people” (Steele, p. 44, 1976).
While Steele's examination of the term
predates James Lockhart by almost twenty years, it lacks Lockhart's
more specific definition of the term to mean “Indigenous people”.
Still, Steele's article implies that
she sees Nican Tlaca as a reference to Nahua peoples who speak
“Classical Aztec” (as opposed to Spaniards/Castillians).
7. Jack Forbes (1973)
Although he did not use the term Nican
Tlaca, Forbes used an equivalent term – Anishinabe –
to describe Indigenous people across the continent – in particular,
Mexicans who were the subject of his book, Aztecas del Norte: The
Chicanos of Aztlan (Forbes, 1973, p. 13). The term Anishinabe
was a precursor to the later notion of an inclusive, pan-Indigenous
term like Nican Tlaca.
Forbes states that at that time,
Mexicans as a group “compose the largest single nation of
Anishinabeg (Indians) found in the United States
today” (Forbes, 1973, p. 13).
8.
Susan Schroeder (2010)
Describing the Colonial-era historian Chimalpahin in
The Conquest All Over Again: Nahuas and Zapotecs, Thinking, Writing, and Painting Spanish Colonialism, Susan Schroeder remarks about him being "an ardent Nahua paisan" and that:
"...here we have a genuine, almost unique, display of pan-Indianism that is nontypical of the micropatriotism [emphasis added] always attributed to Mesoamerican ethnic societies. This, of course, could be a reflection of the seventeenth-century colonial nican titlaca (we people here) phenomenon..." (Schroeder, 2010, p. 117).
9.
Louise A. Breen (2012)
In a recent book titled
Converging worlds: communities and cultures in colonial America, the following statement re-confirms the use of
nican tlaca an an identity label:
The term "Indian" used in Spanish documents usually refers to naturales (natives) of the New World. In the indigenous Nahuatl-language documents of Mesoamerica the native authors refer to themselves as nican tlaca, or "here people" (Breen, 2012, p. 83).
Mexica
The name Mexica can be traced
back to The Letters of Hernan Cortes, which were correspondences from the Spanish invader of Mexico to King Charles V back in Europe. The
historical consensus is that the name Mexica is much older, and describes the
people who are commonly called Aztecs.
The term can also be found within The Florentine Codex from the mid-1500s.
“Mexica As An Identity For
Mexicans”
E. Cardoza Orozoco (1966) / Jack Forbes (1973)
In his 1973 book Aztecas del Norte:
The Chicanos of Aztlan, historian Jack D. Forbes makes the case
for using the term Mexica as an Indigenous affirmation (and
replacement term) people of “Mexican-American” and “Chicano”
descent.
But the argument for the usage of
“Mexica as an identity” is even older than that. Forbes' book
cites an 1966 pamphlet entitled Mexica: An Identity For
Mexican-Americans, written by E. Cardoza Orozoco.
Orozoco states that, “Most persons of
Mexican ancestry are mixed bloods of predominantly 'Indian' descent [emphasis added]”
(Forbes, 1973, p. 168). His reasoning for the Indigenous term Mexica
is that it will remove the semantic oppression of imposing
foreignness upon Mexicans:
“Nobody listens to a foreigner or a
second-class citizen. Persons of Mexican ancestry are relegating
themselves to a second-class status by hyphenation...”
to which he proposes the following
solution:
“In order to abolish this
second-class position, this total foreignness, this difference
between the minority group and the majority, a term has been coined
by several persons of Mexican ancestry. This term is MESHICA
and is also spelled MEXICA” (Forbes, 1973, pp. 170-171).
“Mestizo as a European
colonial identity”
1. Jack Forbes (1973)
The idea that the term mestizo
is a European-colonial identity can be traced back to Jack. D.
Forbes' seminal work Aztecas del Norte: The Chicanos of Aztlan.
Specifically,
Forbes wrote
a section entitled “The
Mestizo Concept:
A Product of European
Imperialism” wherein he explains
that, “The Mexicans and Chicanos of today are perhaps eighty
percent native Anishinabe descent” and that “Mexicans and
Chicanos possess far greater continuity with their native past than
do the Spaniards” (Forbes, 1973, p. 188).
Forbes proceeds to shrewdly dissect the
mixed-heritage of Europeans in a section named “Mestizo
Peoples Who Are Not Mestizo”. He points out
how,
“Racially, the modern Spaniard
probably carries relatively few indigenous genes, the latter having
been greatly overwhelmed by Carthaginian, Celtic, Latin-Roman,
Germanic, Arab, Moorish, Berber, Jewish, black African, and Gitano
intermixture. In both a racial and culture sense, then, the Spaniard
is profoundly a mestizo” (Forbes, 1973, p. 180).
In summary, Forbes states that:
“The mestizo concept, as used by the
Spaniards, by white ruling cliques, and by social scientists, is an
anti-Indian, psychologically paralyzing tool of colonialism”
(Forbes, 1973, p. 204).
2. Guillermo Bonfil Batalla (1996)
Quotes from Guillermo Bonfil Batalla's
book, Mexico Profundo: Reclaiming A Civilization:
“Mestizos are the contingent of the
'de-Indianized' Indians” (Batalla, 1996, p.17).
and
“Traditional campesinos do not think
of themselves as Indians, even though their culture is predominantly
Indian” (Batalla, 1996, p.58).
“6,000 years of civilization”
Based on an archeological study by
Haas, Creamer, and Ruiz (2004), the oldest radiocarbon dates with
communal architecture date back to 3720 B.C., at the Porvenir site in
the Fortaleza Valley of Peru (Haas, Creamer, and Ruiz, 2004, p. 13).
This effectively places the earliest
civilizations of the hemisphere at 6,000 years old.
“4,300 years of civilization”
In his classic
work Mexico: From The Olmecs to the Aztecs, world-renowned
archeologist-historian Michael D. Coe points out that the true starting point of
civilization lies in the abundant production of ceramics, which he
calls “that index fossil of fully sedentary life” (Coe, 1994, p.
38).
It was during the
“Purron phase” (2300-1500 BC) that radiocarbon dates identify
a definite transition into urban life. This is not to say that no
pottery existed prior to this period, but that its regular
production during the Purron period indicates that sedentary life was an
established way of life.
An argument could also be
made that the starting point of “civilization in Ancient Mexico” begins even
earlier – during the Abejas phase (c. 3400-2300 BC) – given a
patterned appearance of “small hamlets of five to ten pithouses”
composed of small farming populations. Coe states that this phase
demonstrates how “sedentism was gradually replacing nomadism”
(Coe, 1994, p. 38). Based on this perspective of nascent urbanism, a phrase like “5,400
years of civilization” might well be justified.
(It should be noted that this is the very method used to date the earliest beginnings of Minoan civilization, and in so doing, the beginnings of an allegedly "Greek" civilization).
“Supe Valley as the oldest area of
civilization”
1. Charles C. Mann (2009)
In his book Before Columbus: The
Americas of 1491, author Charles C. Mann states that,
“Radiocarbon dating showed that Caral was founded before 2600 B.C.
The history books would have to be rewritten” (Mann, 2009, p. 7).
“Huaricanga as the oldest site”
1. Charles C. Mann (2009)
In his book Before Columbus: The
Americas of 1491, author Charles C. Mann states that, “Several
of these sites were older than Caral. One with pyramids, Huaricanga,
dates from about 3500 BC. It is currently the oldest known American
city” (Mann, 2009, p. 7).
“racial and cultural castration”
1. Jack D. Forbes (1973)
In his work Aztecas del Norte: The
Chicanos of Aztlan, Forbes makes
reference to the psychological poison caused by colonialism:
“The
oppressed peoples of the world are struggling to liberate themselves
from both the material and psychological forces of imperialism...Many
people are castrated by feelings of racial and cultural inferiority
implanted by European colonists and
their neocolonist successors” (Forbes, 1973, p. 204).
“75 to 100 million killed by
Europeans”
David Stannard
(1996)
In American Holocaust (1996), David
Stannard states estimates on the number of Indigenous peoples killed
as a result of Europeans. On the original Indigenous population,
Stannard states that,
“Today, few serious students on the
subject would put the hemispheric figure at less than 75,000,000 to
100,000,000” (Stannard, 1996, p. 11).
and in addition,
“...the total extermination of many
American Indian peoples and the near-extermination of others, in
numbers that totaled close to 100,000,000” (Stannard, 1996, p.
151).
“350,000 inhabitants in
Tenochtitlan”
1. David Stannard (1992)
In American Holocaust (1996), David
Stannard estimates the pre-genocide population of the capital city of the Mexica ("Aztecs") :
“With a conventionally
estimated population of 350,000 residents by the end of the fiteenth
century, this teeming Aztec city already had at least five times the
population of either London or Seville, and was vastly larger than
any other European city” (Stannard, 1992, pp. 3-4).
“smallpox as a genocidal tool of
Europeans”
1. James Blaut (1993)
From Blaut's book The Colonizer's
Model of the World: Geographic Diffusionism and Eurocentric Theory:
“The relatively minor difference in
technology between the two communities [Indigenous vs. Europeans] ,
and the impact of Eastern Hemisphere diseases upon Western Hemisphere
communities, can be explained in terms of the settlement history of
the Western Hemisphere and its consequences. The Americas were
not conquered; they were infected [emphasis added]” (Blaut,
1993, p 186).
2. Ward Churchill (1997)
In his book A Little Matter of
Genocide, Ward Churchill states that smallpox was consciously
used by Europeans as a weapon of war:
“...it is at best an absurdity to
contend that attrition through disease represents anything
approximating a 'benign' explanation for the complete extermination
of numerous North American native peoples – or the near-total
disappearance of the 'race' as a whole – between 1600 and 1900. To
the contrary, based on evidence the presumption should be... that the
waves of epidemic disease that afflicted indigenous populations
during these centuries were deliberately induced, or at least
facilitated, by European invaders” (Churchill, 1997, p. 156).
3. Ronald Wright (1992)
In his book Stolen Continents, Wright
provides a quote by Spaniard Francisco de Aguilar welcoming the
onslaught of smallpox against Indigenous people:
“And when the Christians were
exhausted from war, God saw fit to send the Indians smallpox”
(Wright, 1992, p. 44).
inventions and achievements
See the excellent book American
Indian Contributions to the World for an encyclopedic treatment
of Indigenous inventions.
compulsory education of the “Aztecs”
Jacques Soustelle (1962)
In his seminal work Daily Life of
the Aztecs, Soustelle explains that in terms of education:
“It is well worth noting that in that
age and upon that continent an American native race practiced
compulsory education for all and that Mexican child of the sixteenth
century, whatever his social origin, was deprived of schooling”
(Soustelle, 1962, p. 173).
"Anahuac" as a nation
1.
Guillermo Bonfil Batalla (1996)
In his book Mexico Profundo: Reclaiming A Civilization,
Guillermo Bonfil Batalla suggests that the creation of the modern area
of "Mexico" -- via so-called "Independence" in 1821 -- could also be
equated with an enlarged concept of Anahuac:
" Independence created a new sociopolitical entity, Mexico, or "Anahuac", as was suggested at one point" (Batalla, 1996, p.97).
The original use of Anahuac applied mainly to the Anahuac Valley. Most scholars interpret the meaning of Anahuac to be something like "The land near the waters" or "the land in between the waters".
When "Mexico" achieved formal
"independence" from Spain in 1821, its territory extended from
modern-day Mexico to the far north in the "U.S. Southwest"... far beyond
the original conception of Anahuac in its earlier form.
In fact,
this version of Anahuac would encompass the majority of "North America".
“Cemanahuac”
From "A Hill on a Land Surrounded by Water: An Aztec Story of Origin and Destiny" by Wayne Elzey:
“The surface of the earth, Cemanahuac, meant "land
surrounded by water...Cemanahuac
was the model for all centers established on it, and each of these
centers was a world in miniature,
enclosing and enclosed by other,
structurally similar centers” (Elzey, 1991, p. 128).
“Ometeotl has many manifestations”
1. Jack D. Forbes (1973)
Quotes from Forbes' book Aztecas del Norte: The
Chicanos of Aztlan:
“Ometeotl is known by many other
names, such as Tonantzin... and Tlazolteotl” (Forbes, 1973, p. 56).
and
“We can summarize the [ancient]
Mexican concept of The Ultimate Reality by saying that it is a great,
creative, active, force or power possessing the quality of
self-creation” and that with its Masculine and Feminine qualities,
“it can give birth to 'thoughts' which are cosmic forces (sometimes
described as 'lesser gods') and to 'thoughts' which are visible
things that we call the earth, matter, living things, and so on”
(Forbes, 1973, p. 56).
2. Roberta H. Markman and
Peter T. Markman (1992)
In their work The Flayed God,
the Markmans explain “Mesoamerican religion”:
“The vast complexity becomes profound
simplicity when we realize that for the seers of Mesoamerica who
elaborated this marvelous system, all observed reality, all the gods
and spiritual forces, are finally manifestations on various
planes of 'reality' of the unitary essence of all being that is
complete and of itself” (Markman and Markman, 1992, pp. 61-62).
The need for an Indigenous
University
1. Jack D. Forbes (1973)
In a section of his book Aztecas del Norte: The
Chicanos of Aztlan (in a section titled “Every People
Needs Its University”, Jack D. Forbes states that:
“History has shown that every race or
nation of people needs it own center for intellectual and
artistic development, its own university, its own
center for assisting in the self-realization of its entire people”
(Forbes, 1973, p. 245)
and
“Our noble heritages are as great
as any other on the face of the earth. We do not have to prove
that they are worthy of “preservation” (Forbes, 1973, p. 246).
Works Cited
Batalla, G., & Dennis, P. A.
(1996). México profundo: reclaiming a civilization. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Blaut, J. M. (1993). The colonizer's
model of the world: geographical diffusionism and Eurocentric
history. New York: Guilford Press.
Churchill, W. (1997). A little
matter of genocide: holocaust and denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
present. San Francisco: City Lights Books.
Coe, M. D. (1994). Mexico: From the
Olmecs to the Aztecs. (4:e upplagan. ed.). London: Thames and
Hudson.
Cortes, H., & Pagden, A. (2001). Hernan Cortes - Letters from Mexico. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dibble, C. E., & Anderson, A. J.
(1977). Florentine codex.. ([Reprint]. ed.). Santa Fe: The
School of American research and the Univ. of Utah.
Elzey, W. (1991). A Hill on a Land
Surrounded by Water: An Aztec Story of Origin and Destiny. History
of Religions, 31(2), 128.
Forbes, J. D. (1973). Aztecas del
norte; the Chicanos of Aztlan.. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett
Publications.
Haas, Jonathan, and Winifred Creamer. 2004. Cultural transformations in the Central Andean Late Archaic. In Andean archaeology, ed. H. Silverman, 3550. Malden: Blackwell.
Haas, J., & Creamer, W. (2006). Crucible of Andean Civilization: The Peruvian Coast from 3000 to 1800 BC. Current Anthropology, 47(5), 745-775 .
Keoke, E. D., & Porterfield, K. M.
(2002). Encyclopedia of American Indian contributions to the
world: 15,000 years of inventions and innovations. New York, NY:
Facts on File.
Lockhart, J. (1992). The Nahuas
after the conquest: a social and cultural history of the Indians of
central Mexico, sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Lockhart, James, and Bernardino de Sahagún. We people here: Nahuatl accounts of the conquest of Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Print.
Mann, C. C. (2005). 1491: new
revelations of the Americas before Columbus. New York: Knopf.
Mann, C. C., & Stefoff, R. (2009).
Before Columbus: the Americas of 1491. New York: Atheneum
Books for Young Readers.
Markman, R. H., & Markman, P. T.
(1992). The flayed God: the mesoamerican mythological tradition :
sacred texts and images from pre-Columbian Mexico and Central
America. San Francisco, Calif.: HarperSanFrancisco.
Nican Tlaca. Mexica Movement.
Retrieved from
http://www.mexica-movement.org/timexihcah/identity.htm
Poole, S. (1995). Our Lady of Guadalupe: the origins and sources of a Mexican national symbol, 1531-1797. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Poole, S. (1995). We People Here:
Nahuatl Accounts of the Conquest of Mexico. Anthropological
Linguistics, 37(2), 225.
Schroeder, S. (2010). The conquest all over again: Nahuas and Zapotecs thinking, writing, and painting Spanish colonialism. Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press.
Schwaller, J. F. (1993). The Nahuas
after the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of
Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. The
Sixteenth Century Journal, 24(3), 762.
Soustelle, J. (2002). Daily life of the
Aztecs. London: Phoenix. (Original work published 1962)
Stannard, D. E. (1992). American
holocaust: the conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Steele, S. M. (1976). A Law of Order:
Word Order Change in Classical Aztec. International Journal of
American Linguistics, 42(1), 44.
Wright, R. (1992). Stolen
continents: the Americas through Indian eyes since 1492. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin. (Original work published 2005)
