Transplant or graft? Hroch and the Mexican patriotic movements

Abstract

In his highly influential work on the “small,” stateless European nations, Hroch seems to assume that patriotic movements have a homogeneous view about the core relations or “ties” that constitute and identify their nations. This assumption seems generally correct for the cases Hroch studies. However, is it correct if applied to the study of those patriotic movements developing in comparatively larger, heterogeneous and underdeveloped societies, comprising several ethnic groups bound together by the colonialist rule of an autocratic empire? I argue that, while the colonial experience can lead to the creation of some ties among the dominated populations, it also affects the way patriotic movements perceive their own nations. As a result, the phase of patriotic agitation can involve diverse movements addressing the same nation, but each having a particular view on the features and history of it. Such contested patriotic doctrines can lead to very important variations in the political agendas and goals of those movements, especially when they reach the mass phase. To exemplify this, the nineteenth century movements in New Spain/Mexico will be used as an example.

Keywords:

• Miroslav Hroch
• nationalism
• Mexico
• patriotic mobilization

Acknowledgements

The author would like to express his gratitude to the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments to an earlier version of this paper. I am solely responsible for any errors.

Notes

Namely Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Anderson's treatment of the American independences is a matter of debate. For instance, in many cases the printed materials that are so important for Anderson's analysis, were produced after the beginning of the patriotic movements, not before (Guerra 3–32; Van Young 35–67).

In contrast to the work of authors such as Deutsch, Kohn, Hayes, Berlin, Gellner, Hobsbawm, Breuilly or Hall, Hroch has yet to be translated to Spanish and/or Portuguese, with the exception of some isolated articles.

For instance, those that focus mostly in the activities of the political elites (i.e. Breuilly; Hobsbawm).

In any case, only during and after Phase C did the movements start to evidence internal tensions, caused by different group interests and ideas (Hroch, “From National Movement”; In the National Interest).

Later, Hroch incorporated further criteria such as the claim for the common property of a given national land, and the existence of a “high culture” (In the National Interest 16–17).

Being consequent with a Marxist approach, Hroch also includes a phase of proletarian revolution (Social Preconditions 27–30). However, this is not relevant to this paper.

In contemporary terms, the continental area of the eighteenth century Viceroyalty of New Spain would include today's Mexico, plus eight states in the USA, as well as all Central America excepting Panama. However, Central America formed a largely autonomous administrative subdivision, the Capitanía General de Guatemala. Legally, New Spain also comprised of most of the Caribbean islands (Cuba, Puerto Rico and Jamaica included) as well as the Spanish East Indies (Philippines and a number of smaller islands) both being ruled under the status of Capitanías. However, the distances involved made such overseas territories autonomous in practice.

Speaking about obrajes, Baron von Humboldt compared them to galleys, noticing that most workers developed tuberculosis after two or three years (qtd. in Florescano and Menegus 414). The obraje was a fabric-production unit, larger than the common artisan shop, but far less developed that an industrial unit regarding technology or specialization. In most cases, the workers of an obraje were forced to live inside the premises, some of them unable to leave until they have paid (from their handiwork) a previously acquired debt, made in the form of pre-paid wages. Also, some criminals were sent to obrajes instead of jails (see Viqueira and Urquiola; Gómez-Galvarriato).

Humboldt famously stated he had never seen “such inequality in wealth distribution, of civilization, land cultivation and population” as in Mexico (qtd. in Villoro “La Revolución de Independencia” 497).

Based on the Estatutos de Pureza de Limpieza de Sangre (Statutes of Blood Cleaniless).

Between 1532 and 1608, the indigenous population of the central highlands of Mexico (including Mexico City and the core of the extinct Aztec empire) decreased from more than 11 million, to c. 852,000: a depopulation ratio of 13 to 1. In other zones, the lowlands, the ratio was as high as 26 to 1 (Newson 166, Table 5.4)

In order to classify castas, sets of paintings were ordered by colonial authorities to clearly illustrate each case (Katzew; Carrera). Such paintings depict a couple and a child, each with the ethnic and cultural features attributed to a given group, and have an explanatory text below such as “From a Spanish man and a Black woman comes a Mulato”; “From a Spanish man and a Mulato woman comes a Morisco,” etc. Some castas were given strange yet official names as salta pa’ tras (jump backwards), tente en el aire (float in the air) or no te entiendo (I don't understand you), while other castas received names of animals, such as Lobo (wolf) or Coyote.

Such gendered division can still be found on the Mexican national imaginary (Gutiérrez, “Symbolic Violence”).

In fact, in 1771 the City Council (Ayuntamiento) of Mexico City sent an official request to the Crown, pointing at the grievances made against the criollo population and claiming that peninsulares lacked any real knowledge of New Spain or a true interest on its well-being. However, it explicitly limited itself to claim only a higher degree of autonomy and a hierarchical position for criollos, depicted as best able to control Mexico in benefit of the Crown (Brading, Los Orígenes 30–32).

As Villoro states, the racial distinction between criollos and peninsulares did not affected the privileged strata, but it was defended by the middle classes as to rationalize deeper antagonisms (i.e. social and economic) and present them in a more dramatic, “populist” form (“La Revolución de Independencia” 496).

The Audiencia was a body combining judicial and legislative functions, as well as some executive and key functions such as taxes and treasury. In New Spain, it was headed by the Viceroy.

Ayuntamientos were the bodies in charge of public affairs, services and the administration of municipalities.

The most well-known case is that of the Venezuelan patriots Francisco de Miranda, who envisaged an empire “from the Missisipi to the Cabo de Hornos” (that is, including all the Spanish colonies of the continent), named Colombia as a tribute to Columbus – which is the origin of the current name of the country. Simón Bolivar later took the leadership on such project and, under his auspices, the (symbolically named) Amphictyonic Congress was held in Panama in 1826, aiming to integrate the recently born Republics. However, it had a very limited success.

Among other authors, the writings of Servando Teresa de Mier were extremely influential in linking the pre-Hispanic rites and the Virgin cult (Brading, Los Orígenes 583–602).

In fact, the leader of the 1810 patriotic revolt, criollo father Miguel Hidalgo, was judged and executed by the Inquisition (Knight 286).

The most important exception is father Servando Teresa de Mier, a charismatic, criollo Dominican priest who, as early as 1794, claimed the status of a nation for Mexico, and outlined a history based on indigenous roots and culture. It incorporated Aztec gods in a Catholic history of Mexico (especially the Virgen of Guadalupe), while promoting a doctrine that combined both Catholic and radically liberal values. After being persecuted and imprisoned in both Mexico and Spain, he escaped and worked as a journalist and political activist, traveling to France, England and United States. He also became a chaplain and soldier for liberal forces both in Spain (against Napoleon) and in Mexico. He later became an important congressman in independent Mexico (Brading, Los Orígenes 583–602; The First America).

In any case, we must take into account that the relation between “people,” “citizens” and “nation” is not straightforward but extremely complex, even contradictory (Canovan, Nationhood and Political Theory, The People; Yack).

In many other aspects, the Apatzingán Constitution was modeled after the French constitution of 1793 and 1795, with a strong liberal and radical content (Villoro, “La Revolución de Independencia” 514; Alberro, Hernández and Trabulse).

Brading names Fray Bartolomé de las Casas (1484–1586), the first bishop of Chiapas, and Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1578–1650), an educated mestizo with noble indigenous ancestors, as two such precursors. However, de las Casas focused on a Christian defense of the natives against the abuses of the colonialists, while de Alba's work consisted mostly of drafts of limited circulation (The First America 58–78, 272–75). The first person to create a coherent history of the New Spain, including its indigenous traditions and past, was the criollo Jesuit priest Francisco Javier Clavijero, who published his Historia Antigua de México (Ancient History of Mexico) in Bologna, Italy in 1780–1781 (Brading, The First America 447–62). It became extremely influential not only among subsequent Mexican patriots, but among European audiences as well, being translated to several languages.

Even today, Miguel Hidalgo is considered as the “father of the nation” in official discourse.

Curiously, the actual phrasing of the motto (known as Grito de Dolores) is debated, but all versions invoked the Virgin.

In fact, such kinds of activities and groups were called in Spanish precisely conspiración (conspiracy) due their secret nature.

Guerrero had criollo, indio and African ancestry, even if his exact lineage is disputed.

It is quite significant that, in the first documents of the Congress, the country was not given a proper name; even the declaration of independence referred to America Septentrional (North America). This can be related to the fact that the rest of the Spanish colonies in the continent were also undergoing revolutionary processes, and that in such moment the creation of a large confederation, encompassing all the former colonies, was still considered a genuine option among many rebel leaders of the continent.

One is the expedition headed by the Spanish liberal Francisco Javier Mina who, together with father Servando Teresa de Mier, disembarked in Northern Mexico in 1816 to support Mexican independence. However, Mina's expedition did not find local support and was defeated. Mina was executed and Teresa de Mier imprisoned.

In the Mexican official historiography, the pact between Guerrero and Iturbide is known as the abrazo (embrace) de Acatempan, as the military leaders sealed the pact in that way.

In fact, the industrialization of Mexico and the creation of bourgeoisie classes only happened in the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth. It is tempting to classify the Mexican revolution of 1910 as a bourgeoisie revolution; however, this should be heavily qualified, as a large component, both ideologically and practically, drew on pre-bourgeoisie, agrarian doctrines such as those promoted by Emiliano Zapata in southern Mexico (Womack).

Tellingly, movements claiming for the restoration of indigenous cultures and societies have only become strong during the last decades of the twentieth century. Even if the indigenous cultures were always present in the political discourse, Mexico recognized the indigenous languages as official only in 2003. Today, Mexico has more than 60 official languages.