338 UNIT 3 MODERN MESOAMERICA
Box 8.6 Mesoamerican Identities in Mexico CityThe sociologist Alicja Iwanska in her book The Truths of Others(1977) describes how middle-
class Indians of Mexico City vary widely with respect to how they view the significance of the na-
tive Mesoamerican tradition with respect to Mexican national culture and identity.
One group, the “Realists,” adopts an indigenist position: They advocate the incorporation
of the peasant Indians into Mexican society but on equitable terms and to the extent possible
with preservation of the regional native cultures. Their theme is “Let’s Mexicanize Indians, not In-
dianize Mexico.” They differ from the idigenists of the National Indian Institute in claiming that
educated Indians like themselves rather than governmental agents should mediate between the
rural Indians and Mexican society. They are critical of certain problems faced by the native
Mesoamericans in their communities, such as the machinations of caciques and other “para-
sites” found there. In the past the Realists organized teams of Indian professionals to visit the com-
munities and to provide needed services.
A second group, the “Utopians,” adopt a nativist position on the issue of Mesoamerica and
Mexican nationalism. The so-called Utopians advocate restoring the Mesoamerican cultural tra-
ditions of the past as the basis for Mexico’s identity as a progressive nation-state. They tend to
glorify the Mesoamerican cultures and engage in revising native histories so as to conform more
closely with their own ideas about Mesoamerica’s glorious past.
One group of utopian “Aztecs,” for example, argues that the Spaniards gave their Aztec
forefathers a bad name by ascribing to them excessive human sacrifices. According to the lead-
ers of this group, references to the Aztecs’ practice of human sacrifice should be taken as only
“poetic metaphors” and not actual literal fact. Furthermore, they claim that the Aztecs were not
organized as an empire but as a genuine democratic confederacy that was founded on the com-
munalistic calpulliunit. The Aztec calpulli, it is argued, became the model not only for the Mex-
ican ejido but also for the communes of China and the kibbutzim of Israel.
This group’s goals include such ideas as replacing Spanish with Nahuatl as the official na-
tional language, gaining control of the national government through the miniscule Mexicanidad
party, and creating a new national ceremonial calendar based on historical events involving the
Aztecs (from aboriginal times to the present day).
Despite the differences between the realist and the utopian Indians of Mexico City, they
have much in common. Both have achieved middle-class status, although the Utopians tend to
be wealthier, higher in social standing, and probably farther removed from their roots in the rural
Indian communities. They are both cultural pluralists in the sense of wanting to preserve the na-
tive cultures within the context of Mexico’s nationalism, although the Utopians go further in ad-
vocating the restoration of Mesoamerican cultural elements already lost. And both have
considerable knowledge about the native Mesoamerican cultural tradition, although to a large
extent their knowledge is more intellectual understanding than deeply held cultural beliefs.
The Realists insist on being called “Indians,” whereas the Utopians want to be known by their
ancient Mesoamerican designations: for example, as “Aztecs,” “Mayas,” “Purépechas” (Taras-
cans), and so on. Nevertheless, both groups denounce the conquest process as a result of which
the term ”Indian” was created; and, understandably, both strongly opposed the 1992 Quincen-
tenary celebration of Columbus’s ”discovery,” arguing that it should have been a time for mourn-
ing rather than for celebrating.