https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0098-4604
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Mexico’s Cora Indians have played an outsized role in national history, thanks to their skilful use of guerrilla tactics and success in forging strategic alliances with outside forces in defence of their cultural, territorial and political autonomy. Cora participation in elite struggles between Liberals and Conservatives (1850–73), and subsequently in the Mexican Revolution (1910–20), helped to shape the way that both conflicts played out in Western Mexico. Such participation also allowed Cora communities to keep hold of traditional landholdings in the face of political and economic reform, while sowing the seeds for the foundation of the Mexican state of Nayarit.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. González, Ensayo estadístico y geográfico de Territorio de Tepic, 560; Cambré, La Guerra, 496; see also the numerous articles attacking Lozada and his supporters in Le Trait d’ Union and Juan Panadero from the mid-1850s onwards.
2. The best examples of this tendency can be seen in the work of Rendón: cf. Rebelión Agraria de Manuel Lozada and Manuel Lozada y las comunidades indígenas. A notable and comprehensive exception to this approach is to be found in the work of Regina Lira, who has recently carried out in-depth research into Cora and Huichol participation in Lozada’s movement, showing that their support cannot be separated from the ethno-cultural, ritual-political and historical idiosyncrasies of each people, and, indeed, of each of the numerous communities between which they are divided. Cf. Lira, “De Buenos mexicanos.”
3. In the Cora homeland and nearby regions, mestizos are primarily defined as all those local people who do not speak an indigenous language or take part in indigenous rituals. Other criteria by which Mexican mestizo identity can or should be judged vary from region to region, and are often controversial; for in-depth studies of Mexican ‘mestizaje’ see Lomnitz-Adler, Exits From the Labyrinth; Bonfil, México profundo; Friedlander, Being Indian in Hueyapan.
4. cf. Morris, ‘Creating the World Anew,’ and ‘“¿Forjando Patria?” Las políticas del Estado revolucionario y el ocaso de los vínculos intercomunales coras en la Sierra del Nayar’.
5. Coyle, From Flowers to Ash, 75.
6. Neurath, Las fiestas, 21.
7. Hinton, “Pre-Conquest Acculturation,” 166.
8. Coyle, From Flowers to Ash, 82.
9. Jáuregui, Los coras, 12.
10. Coyle, “The Customs,” 516.
11. Ortega, in ibid.
12. Gerhard, La frontera Norte, 142–5.
13. ibid., p.147; and Gómez, “Huicot,” 138.
14. Hinton, “Indian Acculturation,” 22.
15. Coyle, From Flowers, 85.
16. See note 14 above.
17. Lira, “De buenos mexicanos,” 7.
18. Jáuregui, Magriñá, “Estudio etnohistórico,” 64–6.
19. Santoscoy, Colección de documentos, 62.
20. ibid., 63.
21. Coyle, From Flowers to Ash, 88.
22. Lira, “De buenos mexicanos,” 11.
23. Hobsbawm, Bandits, 20.
24. Lira, “De buenos mexicanos,” 21.
25. ibid.
26. Meyer, Manuel Lozada, 239.
27. Ibid 220, 239 and 331.
28. ibid., 223 quoting Azuela, “El Hombre Masa,” 409–10.
29. AHJ, Seguridad Pública, Rocha to Parrodí, 2 October 1857.
30. Ibid.
31. AHJ, Seg. Púb., Convenios de Paso de Caimán, 15 November 1857.
32. Ibid.
33. Lira, “De buenos mexicanos,” 21.
34. cf. Giacomo Macola, ‘Guerrilla Warfare in Katanga: The Sanga Rebellion of the 1890s and Its Suppression’, in this issue.
35. Lira,“De buenos mexicanos,” 21.
36. Quevedo y Zuvieta, México, 140; see also Van Oosterhout, “Popular Conservatism,” 221–2.
37. cf. A. Aldana Rendón, Rebelión Agraria de Manuel Lozada; Rendón, Manuel Lozada y las comunidades indígenas; Rugerio, ‘La Revuelta Agraria de Manuel Lozada y la Separación de Tepic.”
38. cf. Esperando a Lozada; Meyer, La Tierra de Manuel Lozada Vol. IV: Colección de Documentos para la Historia de Nayarit; Meyer, Manuel Lozada.
39. ‘Periódico Oficial 1878,’ in Meyer, De cantón de Tepic, 158.
40. Alicia Hernández Chávez, ‘Lozada no muere,’ in ibid., 211.
41. Lira, “De buenos mexicanos,” 23, citing Meyer, Manuel Lozada, 240–241; 251–254.
42. Quevedo y Zuvieta, México, 65.
43. Lira, “De Buenos Mexicanos,” 22.
44. ABPE, Colección de leyes y decretos de Jalisco, 1860–61, 20.
45. Ibid., 497.
46. Lira, “De Buenos Mexicanos,” 22, citing Peña Navarro, Estudio histórico, 163–165.
47. Pérez González, Ensayo, 416.
48. AGN, Gobernación, 1620, Lozada nullifies ‘Tratos de Pochotitán,’ 13 June 1862.
49. AHJ, Fomento leg. 1864, Ogazón authorises Millen to recruit colonists, 13 October 1861; Periódico oficial del Gobno. de Sinaloa, 15 April 1862.
50. Lira, “De buenos mexicanos,” 22–3.
51. Ibid., 23.
52. Mario Draper, “The Force Publique’s Campaigns in the Congo-Arab War, 1892–1894,” in this issue.
53. AGN, Archivo de Mariscal Bazaine, Vol. III, fs. 180–186 .
54. AGN, Gobernación leg. 1418, Imperial agreement with Lozada, 11 July 1865.
55. Ohmstede et al (eds.), La Presencia del indígena en la prensa capitalina del siglo XIX, 19.
56. Juan Panadero, 29 September 1872.
57. Ibid.
58. Lozada, Plan Libertador, 17 January 1873.
59. Juan Panadero, in el Siglo XIX, Jan 25 1873.
60. J.M. Vigil, editorial in el Siglo XIX, Jan 28 1873.
61. Lira, “De buenos mexicanos,” 25.
62. Liffman, Huichol Territory, 65.
63. cf. Yetman, The Opatas, 243–4.
64. Lira, “De buenos mexicanos,” 24–5.
65. Meyer, De cantón, 162–3.
66. ibid., 139–49.
67. Preuss, Fiesta, Literatura y Magia, 84.
68. de la Cerda, “Los Coras,” 111.
69. AHSEP-84–85/C/38877, E/36, Navarro to DEFN, 26 October 1927; cf. Coyle, From Flowers, 135–8.
70. Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico, 491.
71. Preuss, Fiesta, Literatura y Magia, 172.
72. Pérez, Ensayo estadístico, 10.
73. Dawson, “From Models,” 291.
74. Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico,i, xvi; cf. Preuss, Fiesta, Literatura y Magia, p.91.
75. Hrdlicka, Observations, 35.
76. AHSDN-C/C/105/E/XI/481.5/187, Mariano Ruíz to Sec. de Guerra, 27 March 1911.
77. Meyer, De cantón, 191.
78. AHSDN-C/C/105/XI/481.5/188, Unsigned military report, 28 March 1912.
79. Flores, Flores Sánchez, Memorias políticas, 29.
80. AHSDN-C/C/105/XI/481.5/188, Unsigned military report, 29 April 1912.
81. AHSDN-C/C/105/XI/481.5/188, Reps of Cámara Nacional de Comercio, Tepic, to Madero, 11 May 1912.
82. Pérez, Ensayo estadístico, 560; and López, Fuego, 150.
83. cf. Rugeley, Yucatán’s Maya Peasantry, 33–60; cf. Nugent, Spent Cartridges, 95–6.
84. Memories of Lozada remained strong in both Cora and Huichols communities well into the twentieth century, cf. Jaúregui, Meyer (eds.), El Tigre de Alica; Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico, 1, 491–2. Indeed, in the 1900s some of his former Cora fighters were still alive and well see Preuss, Fiesta, Literatura y Magia, 172), while given that many Huichol Cristeros in the 1920s viewed themselves as successors of their Lozadista forebears, the same likely goes for Huichol rebels in the 1910s, cf. Meyer, Manuel Lozada: El Tigre, 229.
85. AHSDN-C/C/105/XI/481.5/188, Juan Castillo to Sec. Guerra, 22 May 1912.
86. AHSDN-C/C/105/XI/481.5/188, Unsigned military report, 8 July 1912.
87. Joseph, “Caciquismo and the Revolution,” 200–1; cf. Hobsbawm, Bandits.
88. AHSDN-C/C/124/XI/481.5/250, J. Arzamendi to Sec. Gob., 23 July 1912.
89. AHAG-Totatiche/C/3/E/13, Magallanes to Arz., 6 July 1920.
90. Knight, “Caciquismo,” 27–9.
91. In the Oaxacan highlands, communal Defensas averaged five or six members, but several regional caciques commanded from eighteen to thirty-one fighters (Smith, Politics and Pistoleros, 67). Similar ranges are given for the Defensas of the mestizo regions of Zacatecas and Jalisco that bordered the Gran Nayar (I. Landa, in Caldera, de la Torre, Pueblos, 49; P. Landa, in ibid., 55–56).
92. For example, when Mariano Mejía, usually the commander of an eleven-man Defensa in Jesús María, faced a serious military threat, he could assemble a combined force of around one hundred fighters drawn from communities across the Cora Alta; cf. interviews with Enendino Escobedo Mejía; Juventino Mejía Rivera; Cándido Contreras Rosales.
93. Neurath, “Contrasting Ontologies,” 15 (emphasis author’s own).
94. Meyer, Del canton, 192.
95. ibid., 193.
96. AGN-Censo/1930/Nayarit/San Juan Corapan .
97. Filiberto Sánchez, “Aurelio Chavez”.
98. AHSEP-84–85/C/38876/E/17, Orozco to DEFN, 9 February 1928.
99. Interviews with Sandalio Sánchez; Filiberto Sánchez; Agustín Lamas.
100. Interviews with Erasmo González and Filiberto Sánchez;.
101. Interviews with Filiberto Sánchez, Sandalio Sánchez, and Celestino Lamas .
102. AHSEP-45/C/36301/E/29, Navarrete to DECI, 4 May 1925.
103. Purépecha leader Primo Tapia, and Juchiteco strongman Heliodoro Charis, were also notably successful in using their Indian identity to their advantage in their dealings with both local support bases and external, mestizo authorities; cf. Friedrich, Agrarian Revolt, 71–2; Smith, Pistoleros and Popular Movements, 141–2.
104. AGN-Censo/1930/Nayarit/Arroyo de Santiago.
105. Oral sources are unclear as to her actual ethnicity.
106. Interviews with Enendino Escobedo; Juventino Mejía; Cándido Contreras .
107. Many Mayos, Yaquis and Juchitecos went into battle behind mestizos during the revolution. Fallaw and Rugeley suggest that this ‘suggests that Mexican armies reproduced inequality, [and] remained very much a bastion of mestizo culture’ (‘Redrafting History,’ 16–17).
108. AHSEP-45/C/36301/E/29, San Lucas de Jalpa, to Pres., 12 March 1925; AHJ-G-9-920-921/C/52/E/11171, Clemente Villa to Gob.Jal., 17 February 1921.
109. Enendino Escobedo; Juventino Mejía; Cándido Contreras .
110. Juventino Mejía.
111. Enendino Escobedo.
112. Juventino Mejía; cf. Coyle, From Flowers, 185–6.
113. Scott, “Patron-Client Politics,” 92.
114. Knight, The Mexican Revolution, i, 115–27; cf. Brewster, Militarism, Ethnicity, and Politics; and Rugeley, Yucatan’s Maya Peasantry, 101.
115. Perhaps in late 1916, when the Defensas Sociales of Chihuahua were also first established by Carrancista General Enríquez (Almada, La revolución,ii, 326); cf. Nugent, Spent Cartridges, 83.
116. Torres notes that these same relationships defined factional politics amongst the Nahuas of highland Puebla; Cf. ‘Nahuat Factionalism,’ 467–8.
117. Enendino Escobedo; Cándido Contreras .
118. Juventino Mejía; Enendino Escobedo; Cándido Contreras.
119. Ibid.
120. cf. Caldera and de la Torre, Pueblos; de la Torre, 1926.
121. Juventino Mejía Rivera.
122. eg. Reichel-Dolmatoff, The People of Aritama, 15–6.
123. Weber, On Charisma, 19; see also Lomnitz-Adler, Exits from the Labyrinth, p.350.
124. Brunk, Emiliano Zapata, 238–9; cf. Brewster, Militarism, Ethnicity, and Politics, 57–61.
125. Jauregui and Meyer (eds.), El Tigre de Alica; cf. Neurath, Las fiestas,229; and Alvarado, Atar la vida, 299–300.
126. AHED-FR/C/5/E/54, Mariano Mejía to D. Arrieta, 24 July 1919; AHSEP-45/C/36301/E/29, Residents of San Lucas de Jalpa to Gob. Dgo., 12 March 1925.
127. AHJ-G-9–920-921/C/52/E/11171, Clemente Villa to Gob. Jal., 17 February 1921.
128. Aldana, La rebelión agraria, 181–209.
129. Nugent, Alonso, “Multiple Selective Traditions,” 244.
130. cf. Joseph, “Rethinking Mexican Revolutionary Mobilization,” 157–65; Mallón, “Reflections,” 98–100. Given that Lozada’s ‘Conservativism’ and Juárez’s ‘Liberalism’ are both remembered locally as struggles for land and autonomy, peasants on both sides of the War of Reform were obviously more concerned with these ubiquitous goals than with the political labels that elite actors attached to their causes. ‘Popular Liberalism’ and ‘Popular Conservatism’ may therefore have had more in common than is sometimes assumed. After all, as Hobsbawm has pointed out, ‘a social social revolution is no less revolutionary because it takes place in the name of what the outside world considers “reaction” against what it considers “progress”’ (Bandits, 21).
131. Bruno Gómez Estrada and Nemesio Rodríguez Rodríguez, Santa Teresa, Nayarit 03/11/2013.
132. AHED-FR/C/5/E/54, D. Arrieta to Mejía, 9 August 1919.
133. Knight, “Cardenismo,” 97.
134. cf. Starn, Nightwatch.
135. Scott, Weapons, xvi, 29–35.
136. Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico,i, xvi; cf. Preuss, Fiesta, Literatura y Magia, 91.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Nathaniel Morris
Nathaniel Morris is a Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow at UCL. He is researching the rise of indigenous vigilante groups in the context of Mexico’s modern ‘Drug War,’ and the ties of history, memory, space and culture that link them to indigenous militias that played key roles in the War of Reform (1857-61), and the Mexican Revolution (1910-1940). His particular focus is on the way in which the interactions between communal militias, non-state actors (whether bandits, drug cartels or revolutionary guerrillas), and different government institutions, have helped to shape both the Mexican nation-state, and the diverse ethno-cultural and socio-political identities of its inhabitants.