On the Mexican Mestizo
Author(s): John K. Chance
Source: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 14, No. 3 (1979), pp. 153-168
Published by: The Latin American Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2502968 .
Accessed: 22/06/2011 11:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Latin American Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Latin American Research Review.
http://www.jstor.org
RESEARCH
ON
THE
REPORTS
AND
MEXICAN
MESTIZO
NOTES
JohnK. Chance
LawrenceUniversity
No one with even a passing acquaintance with the literatureon Mexican society,
not to mention the rest of Spanish America, can fail to be impressed by the
frequentuse of the termmestizo.'Despite its ubiquity in the writingsof social
scientists,however, the concept of the mestizo is customarilyemployed in a
vague fashionand usually leftundefined. This is especially evident in the work
of anthropologists,who for many years have been preoccupied with defining
the Mexican Indian but have rarelyfocused theiranalyticalpowers on the mestizo. The termitselfhas been used ratherloosely to referto a certaingroup of
people who presumably comprise a majorityof the Mexican population,2 a
culturalpatternshared by these people and otherLatin Americans,3and even a
personalitytype.4
Ethnographersfrequentlyreferto the communitiesthey study as being
eitherIndian or mestizo, but rarelydo theyprovide enough informationto allow
us to decide whether these are viable identitiesfor the people themselves or
distinctculturalconfigurations.Usually, when used as an adjective, "mestizo"
is simply a shorthand descriptiveterm employed by the investigator.In this
context,it is littlemore than a catch-all designation meaning non-Indian and
non-Spanish, sometimes implyingas well an identificationwith Mexican nationalculture.One wonders how social scientistsconcernedwith Mexico and its
people could ever get along without the term, despite the fact that it is only
infrequentlyused by Mexicans themselves. Gonzalo Aguirre Beltranremarks:
"In all cases when [Mexicans] are explicitlyasked if they consider themselves
mestizos, only the educated ones, thatis, the intellectualsor persons who have
had contactwith large urban centers,agree thattheyare; the ordinaryperson is
not familiarwiththe termor gives itanothermeaning."5
153
LatinAmericanResearchReview
Itseemsclearthatthetermrarely,
ifat all,refers
toa viableethnicidentity
in Mexicotoday.Whencalled upon to distinguish
themselvesfrompeople of
indigenousbackground,Mexicansare morelikelyto call themselves
gentede
or simplymexicanos.6 Yet it is obrazon,gentedecente,vecinos,catrines,correctos,
viouslyimpossibleto dismissthe conceptof the mestizoaltogether,
forit has
playedan important
partin theriseofMexicannationalism,
and thetermitself
in historicaldocuments,particularly
appears frequently
those of the colonial
period.Thispaperis notdirectly
concernedwiththecurrent
usage oftheterm
amongMexicansthemselves,norwillit deal withtheconceptas it is used by
modernethnographers.7
The goal is ratherto clarify
theplace ofthemestizoin
Mexicanhistory,
particularly
the colonialperiod.Whilemostof the data presentedpertainto a singlecity-Oaxaca, or Antequerain colonialtimes-it will
be arguedthata similarpatternprobablyexistedin othercitiesofwhatwas once
knownas New Spain. The basic contentionis thatthe historicalcontinuity
assumedby manybetweenthe colonialand modernmestizodoes not in fact
existifwe pay close attention
to how peoplewereraciallyclassifiedin Mexican
citiesduringtheseventeenth,
and earlynineteenth
eighteenth,
centuries.
Byfarthemostinfluential
workin Englishthatis based on thisassumptionis thechapterentitled"The PowerSeekers"ofEricWolf'sclassicSonsofthe
Earth.8BecauseWolf'sportrait
ofthegenesisofthemestizoand hisrole
Shaking
in themakingofmodernMexicohas been so influential,
I willuse itas a foilat
manypointsforthe developmentof myargument.The criticism
of Wolf'sacwhatI regardas a masterly
count,however,is notintendedto belittle
synthesis
of Mesoamericanculturehistory.Indeed, thoughit was writtentwentyyears
Earthremainsremarkably
in manyrespects.But
ago, SonsoftheShaking
current
someoftheideas couldstandrevision,and thispaperwillattempt
to showthat
Wolf'streatment
ofthemestizonow needs to be reformulated
in viewofrecent
evidence.
Wolftreatsthe evolutionof the mestizosectorof the populationas the
drivingforcebehindthemajorsocialtransformations
in Mexicanhistory.
Rather
thanattempting
a seriousculturalanalysisoftheprocessby whichindividuals
ofmixedIndianand Spanishbackground
werecategorizedin thesocialstructure,Wolfstressesinsteadthesignificance
ofthebiologicalfactofmiscegenation
and theinevitable
expansionovertimeoftheraciallymixed("mestizo")population.Fromtheiroriginsin a rootlessand unstablepositionbeyondthepale of
whiteSpanishcolonialsociety,the mestizos,accordingto Wolf,graduallyincreasedin numbersto thepointwheretheyoverwhelmed
boththewhitesand
theIndians,theentireprocesscomingtoa head withtheRevolution
of1910.He
pointsoutthatfrom1650on, themestizosectorgrewat a muchhigherratethan
theIndiansector:"In numberstheIndianhas heldhisown,butitis clearlythe
mestizowhorepresents
thefuture
ofMiddleAmerica."9
Fromour contemporary
vantagepoint,it is difficult
to arguewiththis
in one sense. It is certainly
and fitswithmating
statement
truebiologically,
practicesovertheyearsas we knowthem.Yet,itseems,someimportant
questionshave notbeen asked:Weremestizosdefinedin colonialtimesin thesame
1154
RESEARCH
REPORTS
AND NOTES
way theyare today? Is it valid in this case to inferethnicand culturalprocesses
fromthe biological factof race mixture?Did individuals of mixed Spanish and
Indian ancestryalways have a correspondingmestizo identityin the social structure?Is thereindeed a demonstrablehistoricalconnectionbetween the colonial
and modern mestizo? These are questions thathistoricalresearchshould be able
to answer.
Any effortto tracethe connectionsbetween yesterday's"power seekers"
and those of today is inevitablyhampered by a major stumblingblock: the
fragmentarynature of colonial population data. Sources that provide informato
tionon the racial and ethnicdivisions of the population are especially difficult
work with because theyfrequentlycontradictone another.The task beforeus is
to compare the relative growthin the mestizo and white (Spanish) sectors,for
the Indians as a group have never been serious contenders forpower. For the
territoryof New Spain there are no comprehensive census counts that give
racial divisions before1646, and censuses fromdifferentperiods do not use the
same racial categories to divide the population. The best available estimatefor
1646 shows that the castas ("mixed bloods" in general, usually divided into
mestizos and mulattoes) comprised approximately12.8 percent of the population,while the whites (includingboth peninsulars and creoles, or whites born in
the New World) comprised 10.6 percent. The differenceis not great, but especially importantis the fact that only half the castas were classified in the
recordsas mestizos; the remainderwere mulattoes.10A centurylater,according
to the estimates for 1742, the mestizos had overtaken the whites in numbers,
accountingforslightlyover 20 percentofthe population (see table 1).
TA B L E I PopulationEstimateofNew Spainin 1742
Classification
Number
Percent
Spaniardsa
Mestizos
Mulattoes
Indians
Asiatics
315,475
531,985
187,900
1,603,220
2,800
11.94
20.14
7.11
60.70
0.11
TOTAL
2,641,380
100.00
Source:PeterGerhard,
Mexicoen1742(MexicoCity:Jos6Porruae Hijos,1966),p. 17.
alncludesbothpeninsulars
and creoles.
The best sources forthe study of the racial compositionof New Spain are
the militarycensuses of the non-Indian and nonslave population carriedout in
many localities between 1791 and 1793 and now housed in the Ramos de Padrones e Historia in the Archivo General de la Naci6n in Mexico City.In working with the original censuses and summaries prepared fromthem, however,
SherburneCook noted some curious discrepancies.-"While the censuses themselves all employ the four categories espafiol,castizo,mestizo,and mulato,the
155
LatinAmericanResearchReview
use onlythree:espafiol,
summary
compilations
indio,and mulato.WhileIndians
werenotincludedin theoriginalcensusesbecausethey(alongwithblackand
mulattoslaves) were ineligibleformilitary
the deletionof the
conscription,
mestizocategory
fromthesummaries
is notso easilyexplained.
The discrepancyin racialbreakdownbetweenthe two seriesis
puzzling. Withoutquestionthe same basic enumerationis the
sourceofbothseries.... Itis quiteprobablethattheracialgroupingused bythefieldenumerations
was reclassified
bythegovernwiththeirown ideas.
mentworkersin MexicoCityin conformity
No materialchangecould be made in the numberof Negroesor
mulattoesbut the variousshades of white-Indian
mixtures
could
easilybe segregatedin varyingcategoriesaccordingto theanthroof government
pological,social and economicpredilections
officials.12
Even thetwomostreliablegeneralsourceson populationtrendsin New
Spain at thecloseoftheeighteenth
century
disagreeon theproportional
representationof the castas. In his calculationfor1804,Humboldtestimatedthe
castasto number2,400,000,notfarbelow his figurefortheIndians.However,
he was latertakentotaskbyFernandoNavarroy Noriega,a MexicoCitystatisticianwell acquaintedwithpopulationdata. Navarroclaimedthattherewereno
the numberof Indians or 22
morethan 1,338,000castas, only three-eighths
percentof the populationas a whole.13 The two men also differed
in their
perceptionsof the size of the mestizogroup.WhileHumboldt,theforeigner,
stressedthatcloseto90 percentofthecastasweremestizos,Navarro,thenative,
claimedthatHumboldtignoredthelargemulattopopulationand estimated
that
TA B L E 2 PopulationEstimateofNew Spainin 1810
Classification
Number
Percent
Spaniardsa
1,097,928
17.93
Mestizos
Mulattoes
Indians
SecularClergy
RegularClergy
Nuns
TOTAL
843,385
495,321
3,676,281
4,229
3,112
2,098
6,122,354
13.78
8.09
60.05
0.07
0.05
0.03
100.00
Castasb
Source:Calculationsof FernandoNavarroy Noriega,citedin Alejandrode Humboldt,
Ensayo
politico
sobre
el reino
dela NuevaEspaha(MexicoCity:Editorial
PedroRobredo,1941),
2:26-27.
alncludesbothpeninsulars
and creoles.
bNavarro's
singlefigure
is brokendownon theassumption
thatmestizosaccountedfor63
percentofthecastasand mulattoes
37 percent.
156
RESEARCH
REPORTS
AND NOTES
only about 63 percentof the castas were mestizos.14 If we apply this formulato
Navarro's comprehensive population estimate for1810, it turns out thatmestizos comprised only 13.8 percentof the total-a significantdeclinein representation since 1742 (see table 2). It thus appears that racial divisions as they were
culturallydefined did not wholly coincide with the physical racial types produced by the miscegenationprocess.
Clearly, then, the use of national level statisticsfor the study of racial
compositionnecessarilyinvolves a wide marginof error.It seems preferableto
work instead with local sources-such as the originalcensuses of the 1790s and
parish records-which are more likelyto reflectthe racial and ethniccategories
in use in particularcommunities. The case of colonial Oaxaca provides some
interestinginsightsintothe role ofthe mestizo in one importantsoutherncity.
The preceding arithmeticalexercise forNew Spain, though froughtwith
difficulties,finds some confirmationat the local level in Oaxaca.15 While no
complete census figuresexist forthe seventeenthcentury,parish records (see
table 3) and a tributarycount of 166116indicate thatby 1700 mestizos comprised
at best some 15 to 20 percentof the population of thiscityof fiveto six thousand
people. By the time of the more reliable Revillagigedo militarycensus of 1792,
the population had tripledand reached the 18,000 mark, yet the mestizos still
accounted foronly about 15 percentof the populace despite the high degree of
ongoingrace mixture(see table 4).
T A B L E 3 RacialComposition
ofMarriagePartnersin Oaxaca, 1693-1700
Total
Percent
Classification
Men
Women
Peninsulars
Creoles
Castizos
Mestizos
Free Mulattoes
Mulatto Slaves
Free Negroes
Negro Slaves
Caciques
Indians
Miscellaneous
Unidentified
58
258
9
123
172
24
6
21
8
145
3
33
2
278
17
127
174
14
2
6
10
176
53
51
60
536
26
250
346
38
8
27
18
321
86
84
3.5
31.2
1.5
14.5
20.1
2.2
0.5
1.6
1.0
18.7
0.3
4.9
860
860
1,720
100.0
TOTAL
1693-1700.ReSource:ArchivoParroquialdel Sagrario,Oaxaca, Librosde Casamientos,
fromJohnK. Chance,RaceandClassin ColonialOaxaca(Stanford,
printedby permission
Calif.:Stanford
University
Press,1978),p. 132.
157
LatinAmericanResearchReview
T A B L E 4 ThePopulationofOaxaca, 1792
Classification
Male
Female
Total
Peninsulars
Creoles
Castizos
Mestizos
Moriscos or Pardos
Mulattoes
Afromestizosb
Negroesc
Indians
Unidentified
261
3,041
433
1,228
95
911
185
15
2,644
82
13
3,640
371
1,284
118
980
198
12
2,374
123
274
6,681a
804
2,512
213
1,891
383
27
5,018
205
8,895
9,113
TOTAL
18,008
Percent
1.5
37.1
4.5
13.9
1.2
10.5
2.1
0.1
27.9
1.1
99.9
Source: Archivo General de la Naci6n (Mexico City), Padrones 13 and Tributos34, 7:51r.
Reprintedby permissionfromJohnK. Chance, Raceand Class in ColonialOaxaca (Stanford,
Calif.: StanfordUniversityPress, 1978), p. 156.
Note: Percentagesdo not sum to 100 due to rounding.
aThis figureincludes membersof the religiousorders: 138 males and 177 females. Though
the census does not give their racial classifications,miscellaneous sources suggest that
most were creoles.
bAnartificialcategorynot appearing in thecensus itself.
cDoes not include most of the Negro slaves.
This means that the proportionof mestizos in Oaxaca identifiedas such
may even have declined during the course of the eighteenthcentury,a trend
which in this case cannot be easily explained in termsof geographicalmobility.
in
During this period the city'screole and Indian sectorsincreased significantly
size, and since the non-Indian population of the Bishopricof Oaxaca was quite
small at this time, it is doubtfulthat the city's burgeoningeconomy of the late
eighteenth century would attractonly creoles and Indians from other areas.
While the informationon places of origin in the 1772 census is unreliable, a
similarcount done in the cityof Guanajuato in the same year reveals that 77.7
percentof the adult non-Indian males were born in the cityor in nearbymining
villages and ranchos.Only among the elite, and especially among the merchant
class, was therea significantdegree ofimmigration.17
What, then, was happening to individuals of mixed Spanish and Indian
ancestryand how were theyidentifiedin the parish recordsand census counts if
not by the term"mestizo"? Marriage recordsfromthe last decade of the seventeenth centuryshow a considerable degree of intermarriageamong Oaxaca's
socioracial categories of peninsular, creole, mestizo, mulatto, and Indian, the
overall ratioof mixed unions during1693-1700 being 41.6 percent.18 The mestizos were the most heterogeneous of all the categories,with only 37.5 percentof
the grooms marryingwithinthe group. Fully22.7 percentmarriedwhite women
(creoles), 23.4 percentmarriedmulatas,and 12.5 percenttook Indian mates. Of
158
RESEARCH
REPORTS
AND NOTES
the mestiza women, 26.4 percent married peninsulars or creoles, Indian husbands were the choice of 15.2 percent,and 28.7 percentmarriedmulatos.These
figures suggest that the most probable explanation of the small size of the
mestizo group in Oaxaca was the assimilation of large numbers of biological
mestizos (and mulattoes as well) into the creole group. This process frequently
occurredin cases where the childrenof, say, a mestizo man and a creole woman
were identifiedas creoles. It is true that there was an additional category of
castizo which could be applied to such offspring,but it was used sparinglyin
Oaxaca and had very limited significance.Furthermore,it was not uncommon
for mestizos and others of miscegenated background to attain the status of
creole during their lifetimethrough the accumulation of wealth or strategic
alliances. 19
These data show, then, that the standard picture of the genesis of the
colonial mestizo as articulatedby Wolferrsin assuming thatthe culturalcategories used by the people themselveswere in one-to-one correspondencewith the
biological process of mestizaje.The biological mestizos of mixed Spanish and
Indian extractionare assumed to have been operating with a corresponding
mestizo identitywhen, in Oaxaca at least, they often were not. Indeed, both
parish and census figuresshow thatin Oaxaca itwas the white or creole population which was constantlyexpanding during the colonial period, not the mestizo sector.The urban Indian population was growingas well, primarilythrough
migrationfromrural towns and villages. Yet the urban Indians did not "feed"
the mestizo sectorto the same extentthatthe mestizos contributedto the growth
of the creole sector. As I have discussed elsewhere, Indians in colonial Oaxaca
formeda more homogeneous and tightlybounded ethnic group, occupied a
more uniformposition at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, and were
residentiallysegregated.20While some Indians undoubtedly succeeded in becomingmestizos, this was an infrequentoccurrencein comparison to the extensive racialmobilityamong the castas.
An additional, and perhaps more important,aspect of Wolf's argument
concerns the position of the urban mestizo in Mexican colonial society. The
mestizo, according to Wolf,was "disinherited," "socially alienated," and "deprived of a stable place in the social order." "Such men constitutedneithera
middle class nor a proletariat"but "belonged to a social shadow world."'21 Again,
however, the data fromOaxaca point in a differentdirection.Only during the
sixteenthcenturycan the Oaxaca mestizos be characterized as rootless individuals who formed an identifiablepariah group. At that time all people of
miscegenated background were regarded as inherentlyinferior,both morally
and biologically.They were categoricallydefined as illegitimateby the white
elite.
But during the seventeenth centuryrace became institutionalizedas a
statusmarkerand mestizos, along withthe mulattoes,were grudginglyaccorded
a place in the urban racial system. By now too numerous to ignore and too
necessary to the city's economic functionsto be excluded, the mestizos were
incorporatedinto the systemand conceptuallyranked between the whites and
theurban Indian proletariat.A 1661 census shows thatin contrastto the Indians,
159
LatinAmericanResearchReview
mestizoswerenotresidentially
segregatedin Oaxaca. Manyofthemwereconcentratedin poor neighborhoodson the edge of town,but therewere also
substantial
numbersmixedin amongthewhitesin areas whereIndianhomeweretotally
owners,incontrast,
absent.22
The occupationsof the mestizomales are also worthnoting.The late
seventeenth
century
to aboveyielded132mestizoand
marriagesamplereferred
castizo23grooms, of which occupations were listed for68 percent. Not surpris-
ingly,thefiguresshowveryfewmestizosin theranksofthelargelandowners,
merchants,
and such high-status
artisansas thegilders,silversmiths,
painters,
and sculptors.Theywere,however,well represented
in the city'slow-status
artisantrades(especiallythoseoftheblacksmiths,
tancarpenters,
shoemakers,
ners,tailors,and hatmakers),
and belongedto raciallymixedcraftguilds(gremios).It is clearthat,takenas a whole,theiroccupationalstatusdid notimplya
sociallymarginalposition,formanywhitesheldsimilarjobs. In fact,overhalfof
themestizosinthesamplewereemployedas artisansand manyofthemworked
atthesamejobs alongsidecreoles,mulattoes,
and oftenIndiansas well.
Themarriage
registers
also providesomeinteresting
figures
on legitimacy
ratesforvariousracialcategoriesofthepopulation.Theyshowthatby1700,57
percentofthemestizosmarriedin thechurch(theonlylegalformofmarriage
at
the time)were of legitimate
birth.It would seem thatsuch conditionswould
makeitdifficult
forwhitesto continueto stereotype
all mestizosas illegitimate,
since27 percentofthecreolesin thesame samplewerebornoutof
particularly
wedlock.
The trendsjust outlinedcontinuedto intensify
duringthecourseofthe
as themestizoswerefurther
eighteenth
century
assimilated
intothecreolegroup.
to the1792census,only14 ofa totalof754adultmestizomaleswere
According
unemployed.Mostheldsteadyjobs as membersofthecity'sartisanguilds,and
a fewmanagedtopenetrate
theranksofthehacendados,
professionals,
and highstatusartisans.Marriagerecordsfromthelastdecadeoftheeighteenth
century
show littlechangein the marrying
habitsof mestizomales,who remaineda
quite heterogeneousgroup althoughnow a slightlyhigherpercentage(25.4)
tookcreolewives.24Amongthemestizabrides,however,creolehusbandswere
slightlymorecommonthanmestizohusbands.Significantly,
by thistimethe
legitimacy
rateofmestizosmarriedin churchapproached90 percent,surpassing
eventhatofthecreolesand makingithighlyunlikelythatmestizoscouldcontinuetobe characterized
as illegitimate
anylonger.
The legal boundarybetween creoles and mestizoshad also become
blurred.Mestizoswere no longercategorically
excludedfrompublicand religiousofficeiftheywereoflegitimate
birth,and mostin Oaxaca were.Proofof
mestizoancestry
was becomingacceptableinlegalproceedings
toestablishone's
of blood" (limpieza
de sangre),whereasa centurybeforeonlydirectde"/purity
scentfrompure Spanish stockwithno taintof Indianblood would do. By at
leastthemid-seventeenth
centuryin Oaxaca theongoingprocessof mestizaje
had reacheda pointwhereit could no longerbe regardedby the eliteas an
in an otherwise"normal"systemof ethnically
aberration
defined"estates"of
Spaniards,Indiansand blacks.The whiteeliteceased to view themestizosas
160
RESEARCH
REPORTS
AND NOTES
illegitimatemisfitsand incorporatedtheminto the urban stratification
and status
system.
On one importantpoint, however, I do agree with Wolf'sanalysis. He is
rightin stressing that the colonial mestizos comprised neither a class nor a
culture.25Though theyare oftenregarded by otherwritersas a distinctstratum
in a hierarchyof raciallydefinedestates or "castes," the case of Oaxaca does not
wholly support this interpretation.26
In a city like Oaxaca where race mixture
was extensiveand frequentlylegitimizedby marriageand where the phenomenon of passing was endemic, it would be wrong to conceive of stratification
in
racialtermsalone. The observed heterogeneityof the mestizos and lack ofcorrespondence between the city's occupational and racial hierarchiessuggest that
economic determinantsof rank were also of some importance,perhaps equally
importantas race by the close ofthe eighteenthcentury.But why then did racial
classificationcontinue and the mestizo category persist as an element in the
colonialsistemade castas?
Above all, this systemin Oaxaca reflectedthe viewpoint of the people in
power-the dominant white, Spanish elite and the secular and ecclesiasticbureaucracies. Though race as a status markerwas losing ground duringthe eighteenthcentury,the elite could not psychologicallyaccept thisfactwithoutgiving
up its rationaleforcolonial domination. People at the top thereforecontinuedto
view theirsocietyin racial and ethnicterms(and classifypeople accordinglyin
censuses and parish registers),even though people of mixed racial background
at the middle and lower levels saw things differently.
Racial mobilitywas the
order of the day for many castas, and the system had actually become quite
fluid. Like all othercolonial societies, this one was not withoutits fundamental
contradictions.There were most likelywide differencesin ideology and social
values, the ideology of race being a case in point. The phenomenon of passing
and the shrinkingsize of the mestizo group during the eighteenth century
suggests that over time, race as defined fromabove-by governmentofficials,
priests,and white elitists-was givingway to race as seen frombelow. Indeed,
as will be shown below, thereis informationthatindicates thatthe categoriesof
mestizo and creole were merged into one by many people at the startof the
nineteenthcentury.
It seems highlyunlikelythat the Oaxaca mestizos comprised a group in
the sociological sense, and theirawareness of a shared identitymust have been
extremelyweak ifit existed at all. I would argue thata mestizo's racial classification in Oaxaca was situationallydeterminedand contingentupon what he perceived as best servinghis own interestsin a given context.Racial identitiesmost
frequentlycame into play when lower-class individuals came into contactwith
membersof the elite and officialbureaucracies. These and other"raciallysignificant" situations were, to use Harry Hoetink's phrase, "non-intimaterelations
between the races in superficialeveryday intercourse."27In contrast,I suspect
that racial labeling was of only minimal significancein more intimatesorts of
situationswhere the participatingindividuals knew one anotherwell.
The rigidview of the colonial elite notwithstanding,the rapidlyaccumulatingexceptions to the normativeprescriptionsof the sistema de castas during
161
LatinAmericanResearchReview
showthatwe aredealingnotwitha homogeneousethnic
theeighteenth
century
A mestizo
group or social stratum,but witha highlyflexiblesocialidentity.
regardedhis race not so much as an indicatorof groupmembershipor an
ascriptivebadge of self-definition
withina staticand rigidsocial system,but
whichcouldbe manipulatedand
ratheras one componentofhis socialidentity
oftenchanged.Many "mestizos"who were economicallysuccessfulor were
abletoformstrategic
marriage
alliancesceasedtobe mestizos.
It remainstobe seen how theambiguousstatusofthemestizoin Oaxaca
fromotherpartsofNew Spain. Does Oaxaca reprecompareswithinformation
trendsthatcan also be found
senta peculiarregionalvariant,or does it typify
elsewhere?Whileno fullycomparablestudiesexist,whatlittledataareavailable
indicatethatthemestizoincolonialOaxaca probablyhad muchincommonwith
in otherurbanareas.Theparishmarriage
hiscounterparts
registers
ofthenortherncityofLe6n, studiedby David Bradingand Celia Wu, show thatin thelate
themestizoswerethesmallestracialgroup,faroutnumbered
eighteenth
century
ineachcase bySpaniards,mulattoes,
and Indians.
The mestizos,thesmallestgroupunderconsideration,
betrayeda
lackof homogeneity.
rateranged
The male intermarriage
striking
from61 percentin 1782-85to 52 percentin 1792-93.As befitted
theirmiddlerank,abouta fifth
married"upwards"to Spaniards,
and the remainder"downwards"to mulattoesand Indians.The
ambiguousquality of mestizo status is best revealed in their
In bothsamplestherewereconsiderably
womenfolk.
moremestizo
womenthanmen,and in each case aboutthree-quarters
ofthem
marriedoutoftheirethniccategory.
Abouttwo-fifths
chosemulattoes,and justundera fifth
Spaniards.Unlikemulattoand Indian
women,theywere somewhatmoreupwardlymobilethantheir
men. Butthen,grantedtheirgreaternumber,thesuspicionexists
thatmanymaywellhavebeenmulattoes
orIndianson themove.28
Of course,further
researchis needed to make any meaningful
comparisons
betweenOaxaca arnILe6n, but the ambiguitynoted by Bradingand Wu is
ofwhatwe haveseen so far.Thismaybe highlysignificant
reminiscent
certainly
since in otherrespectsthe two citiesand theirsurrounding
regionsdiffered
markedly.29
The smallsize ofthemestizopopulationin otherlocalitiesofNew Spain
in baptismaland marriagefiguresfrom1821to 1832publishedby
is reflected
Moises Gonzalez Navarro.30In Mexico City,Guadalajara,Ameca, Arandas,
and Hermosillowe findthattherewerefarfewermestizosthancreoleslistedin
therecords.Farbetterconfirmation
of thisgeneraltrendcomesfromthe1793
censusesofNew Spainreferred
to earlier.AguirreBeltran'spublishedtalliesfor
different
ruraland urban-show thatwhileprocommunities-both
sixty-four
of mestizosdoes indeed varyfromplace to place, in
portionalrepresentation
all themajorcitiesthecreolesalwayscomprisedthesinglelargestnonvirtually
Indianracialgroup.31A good exampleis thecapitalitself,where,accordingto
162
RESEARCH
REPORTS
AND NOTES
Humboldt, in 1793 creoles accounted for49 percentof the population, peninsulars 2 percent,Indians 24 percent,and all castas combined only 25 percent.32
All of these figuressuggest a strongnegative correlationbetween degree
of urbanizationand the relativesize of the mestizo sector.The more people and
power concentratedin a given urban center,the greaterthe likelihoodthatmany
biological mestizos would swell the ranks of the creole group, leaving the mestizo categorywith proportionatelyfewerindividuals. This is offeredas a hypothesis to be tested, not a finding,for I have not systematicallycompared the
figurescontrollingfor city size. Generally, however, there seems to be good
reason to expectthatthe overall patternof intermarriage,racialmobility,and the
ambiguityof mestizo status in Oaxaca was more the rule ratherthan the exception in urban New Spain toward the close of the colonial period. Mestizos, as
they were then defined, were not multiplyingby leaps and bounds, but just
barelyholding theirown.
On the eve of independence, then, the "power seekers" were stilljust as
white as ever and still"Spaniards" ratherthan mestizos. While theirphenotype
had certainlydarkened over the years, their steady absorption of Indian and
black genes did not seriously affecttheir social status as "whites." Indeed, it
appears that the mestizos were being merged with the creoles ratherthan viceversa. In Oaxaca, as pointed out, mestizos of legitimatebirthwere no longer
stigmatizedas their ancestors had once been. That proof of mestizo ancestry
was now oftenacceptable in limpieza de sangre proceedings indicatesthatmestizo statuswas at least forsome purposes functionallyequivalent to white.
There is other evidence, though admittedlyslim, thatsuggests thatcategories were being collapsed in a similarfashion in other regions. Three astute
observers of Mexican society in the late eighteenthand early nineteenthcenturiesgive the distinctimpressionthatthe mestizo was no longer automatically
included in the culturally-definedcasta (mixed) sector. In his 1820 critique of
Humboldt's handling of population data, Navarro y Noriega accuses him of
severelyunderestimatingthe mulattoelement: "It is veryimportantto note that
among these castas, those of Africanextractionthatwere subject to tributeand
also excluded fromhonorificposts can only enjoy the rightsof citizenshipwhen
they prove themselves worthyby theirvirtueand merit.[Ifso] this prerogative
is grantedby the C6rtesas provided by thepoliticalConstitutionofthe Monarchy
in article22. They probably approximatehalf a millionin numbers."33There is
nothingnew in this statement,yet I thinkit significantthatNavarro did not feel
compelled to say anythingat all about the legal statusofmestizos.
More directsupport formy hypothesiscomes fromthe pen of the Bishop
of Michoacan in 1799, Fray Antonio de San Miguel, in the Informe
del obispoy
de Valladolidde Michoacanal reysobrejurisdicci6n
cabildoeclesidstico
e inmunidades
del
cleroamericano.
The castas, descendants of the black slaves, are marked as despicable by the law and subjectto tribute,which stains themindelibly.
This is regarded as a stigma of slavery transmissibleto even the
most remote generations. Among la raza de mezcla,that is, among
163
LatinAmericanResearchReview
themestizosand mulattoes,thereare manyfamiliesthatcouldbe
confusedwiththe Spaniardson thebasis of theircolor,physiognomy,and customs.But in theeyes of the law theyare debased
and despised.Thesemenofcolor,endowedwithan energetic
and
ardentcharacter,
live in a stateof constantirritation
againstthe
whites.It is a wonderthattheirresentment
does notmoreoften
promptthemtoseekrevenge.34
In thisstatement
we see a curiousinconsistency
thatfurther
underscores
theambiguity
surrounding
thelatecolonialmestizo.The bishopbeginsby definingthecastasas descendantsofblackslavesand tribute
payers,thusexcludingthemestizosfromthisgroupsincetheywereeligibleforneither.
In thevery
nextsentence,however,he includesbothmestizosand mulattoesin la razade
mezcla.Finally,he suggeststo us thereasonforhis own confusion:thatmany
in outward
mestizosand mulattoesby 1799 were virtuallyindistinguishable
appearancefromthewhiteSpaniards.
The thirdand finalobserverI wish to mentionis theMexicancriticand
journalist,JoseJoaquinFernandezde Lizardi,authorof the novel Periquillo
Sarniento.35First published in 1816, this early Latin American novel provides
ofcolonialMexicansomuchinsightful
commentary
on thesocialcomposition
ciety(especiallyin MexicoCity)in the finalyearsbeforethe war of indepenin thebookone findsespanioles,
dence.Significantly,
amongthemanycharacters
blancos(thesetermsare used interchangeably),
and moremulatos,
lobos,prietos,
nos.Butthereareno mestizos.Lizardisketchestheoppositionand combination
ofwhiteand black,buttheIndian'scontribution
to themiscegenation
processis
notexplicitly
recognizedbyanyterm.In fact,thewordmestizodoes notappear
evenoncein theentirework,so faras I am aware.Could itbe thatbythistime,
themestizoshad mergedto such a degreewiththecreolesthatLizardicould
all theseindividualssimplyas espafiolesorblancos?
conveniently
conceptualize
Ifso, itwould seemthatat thetimeofindependencethemestizoswereheaded
forextinction.
It should now be clear why Wolf'suse of the conceptof the mestizo
thesocialformation
obscuresratherthanhighlights
ofmodernMexicansociety.
themestizowas yetdestinedtobe
He writes:"Denied hispatrimony
bysociety,
itsheirand receiver.... As themestizosfilledwiththeirown web ofrelationshipsthesocialvoid leftby theSpanishoverlords,theyalso projectedintothe
societythatharboredthema commonemotionalforce,thepassionofnationalism.... The mestizoemergedfromhis shadowworldon theedges ofsociety
intothefulllightofday."36Mostofall, Wolfsees theRevolutionof1910as the
and accessto the"leversofpower."Butin
sourceofthemestizo's"legitimacy"
seem
lightofthehardevidenceexaminedso far,thesesweepinggeneralizations
untenable.The phrasesmaybe finelyturned,butI thinkthejudgmentmustbe
thattheydo not add up to good history.
The attemptto use themestizoas a
ofmodernMexicansocietysimplydoesn'twork-at
metaphorfortheformation
leastnotuntilthebeginning
ofthetwentieth
century.
I do notquestionthecloserelationship
and
betweenMexicannationalism
164
RESEARCH
REPORTS
AND NOTES
the concept of the mestizo as a political symbol today. It could be maintained
thatit is impossible to separate the two, since the terms"mexicano" and "mestizo" are now oftentreatedas synonymous. But to tracethe roots of nationalism
directlyto the emergenceofthe colonial mestizo-the cruxofWolf'sargumentconfusesbiological mestizos as the productsofmiscegenationwiththe culturally
definedcolonial mestizo identity,which, as we have seen, was somethingquite
different.
The trajectoryof Mexican historyshows the progressive reduction of a
complex racial classificationsystem throughthe eliminationof the whites and
mulattoes. One must not make the mistake, however, of assigning the same
meaning to the survivingtermsin different
periods. Wolf'serroris his failureto
recognize the importanceof the white creole as an ethnicsymbol in the process
of nation-buildingduring the nineteenthcentury.His discussion of the "power
seekers" overlooks one importantpoint: even in the late colonial and early
national periods, in order to have any hope at all of gaining access to the "levers
of power" one had to be classifiedas white,i.e., a creole or peninsular Spaniard.
The evidence fromOaxaca shows thatmany "mestizos" were in factquite adept
at thisgame.
We are leftwith the problem of tracingracial and ethnicchange through
the nineteenthcenturyin the absence of much concretedata.37The legal abolition of the entireracial classificationsystem in 1822 surely had some effecton
race relationsand the stratification
system,though it has yet to receive detailed
study.At thispoint we must relyon what Mexican intellectualhistorycan tellus
about the ideology of race and the mestizo duringthe nineteenthcentury.Comprehensive treatmentof this topic lies beyond the scope of this article,and I
merelywish to point out that Mexican "whites" were very much in evidence
during these years. The firstsymbol of national identityto arise afterindependence was the creole-not the mestizo-and during the entirenineteenthcentury"the Indian and the mestizo, the latterlacking private propertyand the
formerunwilling to accept it, could not in any way be converted into ethnic
symbolsof nationhood; theywere, as Pimentelput it [in 1864], strangersin their
own country."38The pensadorand essayist Ignacio Ramirez ("El Nigromante"),
himselfof Indian background,was the firstMexican writerto stressracial fusion
and the pivotal role of the mestizo in Mexico's future.39Yet Aguirrepoints out
thatit was not untilthe earlytwentiethcenturythatthinkerslike Andres Molina
Enriquez and JoseVasconcelos put the mestizo at the apex ofhumanity.40
Thus, despite the preoccupationof a few nineteenth-century
intellectuals
with the implications of race mixture,it appears that it was in the main the
Mexican Revolutionwith its ideology of "power to the people" thatbroughtthe
mestizo back again, and this time to center stage. The creole was transformed
into a new kind of person. The revolutioneffectively
did away with the whiteSpanish-creole category and the mestizos-now officiallysanctioned by the
governmentand popular opinion-inherited the reins of power. This was no
resurrectionof the old colonial mestizo identity,however, but a wholly new
social vision based on different
premises. The colonial mestizo was a memberof
Hispanic societyand along with the Spaniards stood in fundamentalopposition
165
LatinAmericanResearchReview
mestizoofthetwentieth
to theIndianin theethnicsense. Buttherevolutionary
is muchcloserto theIndianthanto the
as a symbolofnationalidentity,
century,
whitesorEuropeans.
threadthatconnects
To sum up, thereappearsto be no directhistorical
today'surbanmestizoswiththecolonialmestizosas I have describedthem.In
each case, both the people and the conceptsdenotedby the termare quite
in
It is clearthatthe social historyof Mexicocannotbe interpreted
different.
ethnicformula.Whatis notso clearis the fateof the
termsof any monolithic
becomes
Untilmoreinformation
century.
mestizoduringmostofthenineteenth
available,we cannotbe absolutelysurewho werethe"powerseekers"ofthat
musttakecareto avoid projecting
crucialperiod.In any case, theinvestigator
definitions
ofethnicconceptsbackintopreviouseras.
current
innature,and itis
historical
Theissuesaddressedherearefundamentally
not my wish to exaggeratethe importanceof the conceptof the mestizoin
Mexicotoday.As an ethnicterm,it has been replacedin largepartby "mexiWiththeexceptionofsome
cano" and otherwordsthathaveno racialreferents.
coastalregions,racialand ethnictermsof any sortare littleused in central
Mexicotoday,Oaxaca included.Whendirectinquiriesaboutthetermmestizo
shrugof the
are made, moreoftenthannot theyare metwithan indifferent
shouldersand thereply,"todossomosmestizos."
One of thereasonsforthisshrugof the shouldersis thatthe symbolic
It is a
butculture.
ofthemestizoconcepttodayis notraceor ethnicity,
referent
symbol of national cultural unity,not racial fusion. This shiftin meaning, it
seems to me, is one of the principalideological outcomes of the Mexican Revolution and the ensuing politics of indigenismo.I think it fittingto close with a
passage from Octavio Paz, who, in The Labyrinthof Solitude,perhaps comes
closer than anyone else to capturingthe essence of Mexican identitytoday: "The
Mexican does not want to be eitheran Indian or a Spaniard. Nor does he want to
be descended fromthem. He denies them. And he does not affirmhimselfas a
mixture,but rather as an abstraction: he is a man. He becomes the son of
Nothingness. His beginningsare in his own self."41
NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
166
This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the
AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation in Washington,D.C., 17-21 November 1976. I
wish to thankmy colleagues WilliamP Delaney, Karl L. Eggert,and Hugo Martines,
as well as threeanonymous readers provided by thisjournal, fortheircommentsand
criticismson earlierdrafts.
For recentexamples see JudithFriedlander,BeingIndianin Hueyapan:A StudyofForced
Mexico (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1975); and Barbara
Identityin Contemporary
Luise Margolies, Princesof the Earth: SubculturalDiversityin a MexicanMunicipality
(Washington,D.C.: AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation, 1975).
John Gillin, "Modern Latin American Culture," Social Forces25 (1947):243-48; and
"Mestizo America," in Most oftheWorld,ed. Ralph Linton (New York:Columbia UniversityPress, 1949), pp. 156-211.
Eric Wolf,Sons oftheShakingEarth(Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1959).
RESEARCH
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
REPORTS
AND NOTES
Gonzalo AguirreBeltran,Obrapolemica(Mexico City:SEP-INAH, 1976), p. 119.
Ibid.
The differencein meaning between the termsmestizoand ladinois a related topic of
interestthatwill not be dealt withhere. The lattertermis most commonlyused in the
highland regionsof Chiapas, Mexico and Guatemala. See JulianPitt-Rivers,"Mestizo
or Ladino?," Race 10 (1969):463-77.
Wolf,ShakingEarth.
Ibid., p. 235.
Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran,La poblacionnegrade Mexico:estudioetnohistorico,
Segunda
Edici6n (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica, 1972), p. 219. I have reinterpretedAguirreBeltran'sidiosyncraticdefinitionofracialcategoriesin his table 10.
S. F. Cook, "The Population of Mexico in 1793,"HumanBiology14 (1942):499-515.
Ibid., p. 503 fn.
Fernando Navarro y Noriega, Memoriasobrela poblaciondel reinode Nueva Espafia
(Mexico City:Oficinade D. JuanBautistade Arizpe, 1820), p. 15.
Alejandro de Humboldt, Ensayopoliticosobreel reinode la Nueva Espania(Mexico City:
EditorialPedro Robredo, 1941) 2:140; Navarro y Noriega, Memoria,p. 15.
The data thatformthe base forthisdiscussion come fromchapters5 and 6 ofJohnK.
Chance, Race and Class in ColonialOaxaca (Stanford,Calif.: StanfordUniversityPress,
1978).
ArchivoGeneral de Indias (Seville), Patronato230B, Ramo 10.
D. A. Brading,Minersand Merchantsin BourbonMexico, 1763-1810 (London: CambridgeUniversityPress, 1971), pp. 248-49.
ArchivoParroquialdel Sagrario,Oaxaca, Librosde Casamientos,1693-1700.
These mattersare discussed at greaterlengthin Chance, Raceand Class.
John K. Chance, "The Urban Indian in Colonial Oaxaca," AmericanEthnologist
3(1976):603-32.
Wolf,ShakingEarth,pp. 238-42.
ArchivoGeneral de Indias (Seville), Patronato230B, Ramo 10.
Technically,castizoswere nonwhites who derived fromcreole-mestizounions. Since
in Oaxaca they were very small in numbers and did not constitutea significantelement in the social structure,they have been included with the mestizos in these
figures.
ArchivoParroquialdel Sagrario,Oaxaca, Librosde Casamientos,1793-97.
Wolf,ShakingEarth,p. 243.
Lyle McAlister, in "Social Structureand Social Change in New Spain," Hispanic
AmericanHistoricalReview43 (1963):349-70 includes the mestizos in thecasta stratum.
Magnus Morner,in RaceMixturein theHistoryofLatinAmerica(Boston: Little,Brown,
1967), chapter5, regards the colonial mestizos as forminga distinctracial estate. For a
more detailed critiqueof these positions see JohnK. Chance and William B. Taylor,
"Estate and Class in a Colonial City: Oaxaca in 1792," Comparative
Studiesin Society
and History19 (1977):454-87; and Chance, Raceand Class.
H. Hoetink, CaribbeanRace Relations:A StudyofTwoVariants(New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1967), p. 21.
D. A. Brading and Celia Wu, "Population Growth and Crisis: Le6n, 1720-1860,"
Journal
ofLatinAmericanStudies5 (1973):8-9.
Brading and Wu ("Population Growth," pp. 9, 36) point out thatby the end of the
eighteenthcenturythe Indian and mulattogroups of the Bajio regionwere fastlosing
theirseparate ethnicidentities.In Oaxaca, by contrast,therewas much less intermarriage between Indians and non-Indians, and more Indian males marriedcreole than
mulatto women in the late eighteenthcentury.Indian identityin Oaxaca remained
strongin both ruraland urban settings.See Chance, "The Urban Indian," p. 628.
Moises Gonzalez Navarro, "Mestizajein Mexico during the National Period," in Race
and Class in Latin America,ed. Magnus Morner (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1970), pp. 145-69.
AguirreBeltran,La poblaci6nnegra,pp. 226-27.
167
LatinAmericanResearchReview
32. Humboldt,EnsayoPolitico2:120.
33. Navarro y Noriega, Memoria,p. 15.
34. Quoted in Humboldt,EnsayoPolitico2:101.
35. Jose Joaquin Fernandez de Lizardi, PeriquilloSarniento(Madrid: Editora Nacional,
1976), 2 vols.
36. Wolf,ShakingEarth,pp. 241, 244, 246.
37. See Gonzalez Navarro, "Mestizaje"fora briefdiscussion.
38. AguirreBeltran,Obrapolemica,p. 141.
39. See Martin S. Stabb, "Indigenism and Racism in Mexican Thought: 1857-1911,"
Studies1 (1959), p. 413.
ofInteramerican
Journal
40. AguirreBeltran,Obrapolemica,p. 145.
ofSolitude(New York:Grove Press, 1961), p. 87.
41. Octavio Paz, TheLabyrinth
168