the purpose of this list

[Ernesto Herrera L.]

(I apologize for the inconvenience if by mistake I have sent this posting
twice)

Estimados colegas,
Carlos and Elizabeth:

The fact that, undoubtedly, both of your arguments deserve careful and
unbiased consideration (if we are ever to move forward in the resolution of
such debate) notwithstanding, it seems to me that they may fall somewhat
outside the main purpose of this list, which is, AFAIK, to share knowledge
about the nahuatl language and culture.

Please do not misinterpret me, as a mexican citizen (using English as an
international language, not because of an anglocentric point of view) who
lives in Mexico City, I am deeply interested in, and affected by, the topic
you bring out. I can hardly walk 100 mts. in any direction from where I am
currently typing this message, before I encounter one of the many millions
of people of indian ethnias who live a miserably life, in all cases devoid
of honor, ilusions, hope, opportunities, adequate education, and personal
satisfaction, ...and frequently of food, medical attention, and adequate
shelter and clothing.

If you kindly allow me, I will go against my own advise (back in the first
paragraph) and present some comments on the topic, in order to clarify why
it may be that it brings such an emotional reaction in otherwise objective
and professional individuals as both Carlos (an Spaniard) and Elizabeth (a
Mexican) undoubtely are.

There is a point in the arguments that it is time for mexicans to face the
fact that *most* of us are, at least, half Spanish and we should learn to
appreciate that if we are ever to raise our self-steem. It *is* a fact that
the Spanish culture has contributed valuable things to the world, and there
are more than a few reasons to be proud of such a heritage.

Nevertheless, it is also well past the time that we, and the Spaniards, and
the rest of the concerned world (both popular and academic) unbiasedly
recognize the facts of the conquest as they actually were and not, as has
been overwhelmingly the case, in a "simplistic" and, by now, "boring" manner
of doing human history. And this implies the recognition that, among many
other things, Cortes did *not* "beat" the aztecs (I'm using this
controversial term so as not to refer exclusively to the mexicah, be them
tenochcah or tlaltelolcah, or any other concrete anahuac altepetl) by
"cunning" strategy and "glorious" display of courage with the help of "only"
500 or so men. Instead, he accomplished this by:

1) a series of cowardly massacres *deliberately* planned and inflicted on
unarmed and unexpecting human beings(at Cholollan's and Tenochtitlan's
Plazas Mayores); the killing at Tenochtitlan, particularly, had the effect
of substantialy and significanlty reducing the military leadership of the
mexicah.

2) by commiting the despeakable act of sequestering the top rulers of the
land where he had landed, who until that moment had had nothing but
attentions and presents for him and his "King"; having their absolute ruler
being imprisonned in his own house by his own guests, effectively disabled
the mexicah organization. It was not until Motecuhzoma was killed, by the
Spaniards themselves upon realizing that he no longer was useful since the
folk would no longer obey his orders to refrain from attacking the
Spanish-Tlaxcallan coalition, but his death could be useful since it would
involve long and elaborated funerary rites that could keep their now enemies
busy while they fled the city) that the remaining mexicah, unhindered by the
moral restriction of directly causing the death of his beloved rulers, was
finally able to assemble some resistance.

3) by eventually (machiavellicaly, but very effectively it must be admitted)
enlisting the help of practically every other nahuatl altepetl in his war
against the mexicah; it must not be forgotten that, in the end, the mexicah
people were fighting agains their very, very close relatives (cousins,
in-laws, even half siblings) when they fought against the people of the
former acolhua and tepaneca empires.

4) contrary to what is the traditional, unexamined, simplistic general
opinion, it was the *mexicah* who were grossly *outnumbered* in the vast
majority of their battles against the Spanish-Tlaxcallan (and later
Spanish-Tlaxcallan-Huexotzinca-Chalca-Acolhua-Tepaneca) coalition.

4) and, most important of all, by a dramatically effective (if absolutely
unintended) *biological* warfare that eventually killed millions of people,
but that at the moment of the siege of Tenochtitlan and Tlaltelolco had the
immediate effect of eliminating any effective resistance, such as the one
attempted, valiantly and effectively while it lasted, by Cuitlahuac. By the
time Cuauhtemoc gained command, there was no longer a chance of successfully
defending the island cities with the possible exception of enlisting the
help of their old adversaries, the Purepecha. Unfortunately, the Purepecha
ruler died at that moment, probably killed also by the diseases brought by
the Spaniards (Cortes, if anything, was a very lucky guy, for he was blessed
with favor even from the hands of his enemies, as evidence points out that
the diseases that so effectively helped him were brought by some people in
the Narvaez party), and was succeeded by his feeble-minded son who refused
to help Cuauhtemoc and, ultimately, suffered the same fate as him, only that
he was tied to a running horse to be dismembered instead of being
dishonorably hanged from a tree deep in the Chiapanecan jungle).

Furthermore, human sacrifices (whether or not they were made, and whatever
quantities of people were involved in case that they actually happened in
the manner related by the conquerors and early chroniclers) taken aside, the
fact is that there was in effect a magnificent civilization with hundreds of
cities and elaborate social institutions in this very same valley before the
Spaniards (we?) came and now it is gone. Think about the loss for the world
if the same thing had happened to another distinctive non-western culture,
say, Japan. Well, it seems to me, that the loss of the Aztec civilization is
arguably comparable.

There were, literally, millions of people living in the valley of Mexico in
1520; the Spanish-speaking Mexico City, although today again among the most
populated urban areas in the world, was not to have that same number of
inhabitants for the next 400 years... and it is worth to keep in mind that
it had taken the mexicah only 200 years to create their Tenochtitlan and
Tlaltelolco. Today, I look out at the window, the lake gone, the sky no
longer blue, and most of what I see is an unplanned, mostly dirty city, with
ugly buildings, spread like a rash alongside the otrora beautiful hills.

Clearly, for me at least, a view that blames the Spaniards for every bad
cultural trait that may be generalized over the current mexican population,
is not only simplistic but puerile. However, taken from an unbiased,
objective, statistical point of view, the observation that very much the
same cultural and character traits are shared by all the countries conquered
by the Spaniards, inevitably leads one to consider the fact that an
explanation involving those cultural traits as being present in the original
invaders is likely to be in more accordance with Occam's Razor principle
than one involving the independent evolution of such traits in a multitude
of lands with vastly different underlying social and genetical substrates.
Please note that I am not making any moral judgement on the traits
themselves.

Also not to be forgotten is that even though the Arabs remained in Spain for
*700* years, and undoubtedly brought high culture and refinement to that
land, the original Spaniars, certainly now mixed (linguistically and
genetically) with their former conquerors, won it back.

As I said before, my intention here has not been to enter into an argument
that will, in all probability, not take anybody anywhere, and which
certainly does not belong in this list; but to respectfully attempt to
convey, to whoever this may be of concern or interest, why the resolution of
the internal conflict that pervades our heritage is far from easy for us
mexicans. And I, like Elizabeth probably, and like the rest of the 100
million or so human beings that populate this land now called Estados Unidos
Mexicanos cannot run away from this conflict anymore.

It is in further understanding that we may find a truly human solution to
this problem. Such is the value of this list. Thank you for your patience
reading this quite long posting.

Ernesto Herrera Legorreta
Director of Business Intelligence
Metadata SA
Mexico DF





-----Mensaje original-----

De: owner-nahuat-l at mrs.umn.edu [mailto:owner-nahuat-l at mrs.umn.edu]En

nombre de Elisabeth Curiel

Enviado el: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:23

Para: carlossn at diploma.com

CC: nahuat-l at mrs.umn.edu

Asunto: Re: nobleza azteca



Carlos Santamaria:

Entre toda tu baraunta de disertaciones pretenciosas con que me apabullaste,


no entendi que quisiste decir exactamente. ?Etnocentrismo? No, no no. Los

tiempos evolucionan. Te pondre un ejemplo: En tiempos de mi trisabuela (hace


mas de 80 anos), decirle "macho" a un hombre, era el mayor halago que se le

podria decir. Si yo le digo eso a un hombre hoy, me fulmina con la mirada. Y


por supuesto que lo que hicieron los colonizadores del Nuevo Mundo fue muy

influenciante, pero !que se le hace compadre! Los reyes espanoles se

cansaron de redactar cedular, nombrar visitadores, etc., para vigilar que

sus vasallos obedecieran sus ordenanzas y que no terminaran con los

naturales del pais como hicieron con los de la Espanola; y nada que los

ambiciosos colonizadores continuaron haciendo esclavos, robandoles sus

"sementeras", herrandoles las mejillas como a animales, creando encomiendas,


y muchas lindezas mas. ?Etnocentrismo? ni siquiera tienes idea de lo que

dices.

Y respecto a los Anales de Cuauhtitlan, que fueron rescatadas por don

Fernando de Alba, mi comentario fue sobre la inexactitud de la traduccion

que hizo Primo Feliciano Velazquez, un nahuatlato, quien indudablemente

estaba fuertemente influenciada por los motivos mencionados en mi carta, y

de los cuales haces mofa con tanta gracia.

Te pondre un ejemplo obvio: noto que el traductor, un descendiente de

nobles, traduce "nopiltzin", como "mi hijo", al referirse a Quetzalcouatl,

cuando los "demonios" van a enganarlo, y no lo traduce como "nuestro

principe", como deberia ser mas propio al dirigirse a un rey de la altura

del Gemelo Precioso. Por supuesto, que nopiltzin podria traducirse como mi

hijo, pero no en este caso, digo, soy un poco lerda y puedo equivocarme.

?Acaso en la antiguedad, cuando se presentaba un extrano ante un rey, le

llamaba "mi hijito"? Si es asi, por favor cita fuentes.

Texto citado: "Quilhui nopiltzin tlamacazqui ca nimomacehual ompanihuitzin

nonohualcatepetl itzintlan maxicmottili in monacayotzin, niman cenmacac in

Tetzcatl quilhui maxi miximati maxi mottanopiltzin o ca ompa tonneciz in

tetzcatl."

Primo Feliciano traduce: "Aquel respondio: “Hijo mio, sacerdote, yo

soy tu vasallo; vengo de la falda de Nonohualcatepetl; mira senor, tu

cuerpo. Luego le dio el espejo y le dijo: “Mirate y conocete, hijo

mio; que has de aparecer en el espejo.”

Lisita Curiel

PS (Lo del diminutivo es etno-egocentrismo eh?)





>From: Carlos Santamarina Novillo <carlossn at diploma.com>

>To: Elisabeth Curiel <liccuriel at hotmail.com>, nahuatl-l at mrs.umn.edu

>Subject: Re: la nobleza azteca

>Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:31:21 +0100

>

>

>Elisabeth Curiel ha escrito:

>

> > Desafortunadamente, la Inquisicion, la evolucion cultural natural de los

> > tiempos, el desconocimiento de los antiguos secretos sagrados del

> > sacerdocio, el deseo de agradar e impresionar a los buenos reyes

>espanoles,

> > y muchos otros factores mas, distorsionaron la informacion que nos

>dejaron

> > los historiadores precortesianos, y ahora nos obligan (como las

>cocineras

> > que sacan los negritos del arroz) a buscar cuidadosamente las verdades

>entre

> > todos aquellos escritos y fuentes de los que podemos valernos para

>adquirir

> > conocimiento sobre la civilizacion, la religion y la lengua de los

>antiguos.

>

>Analicemos-interpretemos el texto.

>

>Hay un protagonista central: "la informacion que nos dejaron los

>historiadores precortesianos"

>que sufre la accion de un verbo: "fue distorsionada";

>y una serie de factores causantes de la negativa accion de ese verbo:

>"la

>Inquisicion, la evolucion natural de los tiempos, el desconocimiento de los

>antiguos secretos sagrados del sacerdocio, el deseo de agradar e

>impresionar a

>los buenos reyes espanoles, etc."

> Lo anterior nos obliga -a los historiadores modernos- a tratar de

>desandar

>aquel proceso para recuperar "las verdades". No cabe duda, entonces de la

>identificacion que la autora lleva a cabo entre aquel protagonista central

>y

>este ultimo objetivo actual, es decir, entre "la informacion que nos

>dejaron los

>historiadores precortesianos" y "las verdades".

>

> Subyace una interpretacion maniquea y simplista -desgraciadamente

>todavia muy

>extendida en Mexico- que identifica verdad, legitimidad, justicia con los

>aqui

>llamados "precortesianos", mientras a los espanoles corresponden las

>"virtudes"

>opuestas. Se diria que fueron los espanoles los que introdujeron en

>Mesoamerica

>la mentira y las versiones historiograficas asociadas al poder. Manida,

>simplista, maniquea y aburrida vision de la historia humana.

> Las fuentes indigenas, como cualquier otra, han de ser sometidas a

>critica

>para aprender a reconocer las versiones interesadas que de su propia

>historia

>dieron las elites indigenas. Cualquiera que este introducido en el tema

>conoce

>el etnocentrismo caracteristico de la historiografia indigena, y los Anales


>de

>Cuauhtitlan son un ejemplo destacado. Ademas, siendo la azteca una sociedad

>estratificada, con clases o estamentos diferenciados, no sorprende que la

>historia estuviera al servicio del poder, que Itzcoatl mandara quemar los

>viejos

>"papeles pintados" y reescribir la historia a la mayor gloria de los nuevos

>senores. Solo citar las fuentes derivadas de la llamada "Cronica X" o la

>obra de

>Fdo. de Alva Ixtlilxochitl es ya referirse a parcialidad interesada,

>etnocentrismo y tendenciosidad.

> Todo lo anterior solo viene a concluir que la lucha del historiador

>moderno

>en busqueda de la verdad ha de tener en cuenta todos los "estratos de

>tergiversacion" y subjetividad que las fuentes han venido atravesando desde


>su

>misma gestacion. Y eso no se detiene en 1521, sino que afecta a todos los

>periodos de la historia humana.

>

>Gracias y a seguir bien.

>

>< Carlos Santamarina Novillo --- carlossn at diploma.com >

>