Out of Aztlan

[Michel Oudijk]

Dear Gordon and others,
 
I've been thinking whether I should write this or not, but as you can see I have come to the conclusion that I should. I had decided that my message I sent yesterday would be my final on this subject, but it only seems just to me to respond to your response. It seems to me that your message was spurred by anger which, in my opinion, is never a good advisor. I feel that in that anger, I'm accused of things that are simply not correct, which is the reason I'm now writing again. As in my previous messages, I will go over your message point by point.
 
> It is rather dismaying to be subjected repeatedly to opinions expressed in
> a strident and condescending tone when an academic matter of no little
> interest is being discussed. It should be possible to discuss these
> matters in a civil, if not friendly, manner. The only consolation to me in
> this case lies in the fact that such browbeating is usually self-defeating
> and tends to reflect negatively on the source.
 
I have read my two messages I wrote in response to yours and I feel that at no time have I been strident, condescending or disrespectful. I may have used cynism at some point, but always a joyful one and never spiteful. I have responded to each and every argument you have put forth which I consider part of the academic discussion. Maybe you are not used to being responded to in a direct and frank manner, but, I feel, that shouldn't be interpreted as disrespectful. I, as anybody else, am free to respond and question anybody's assertions as long as it is done with respect which I think I have.
 

> Michel Oudijk has suggested that I learn Nahuatl or, paraphrasing Humberto
> (sic) Eco, "get out of the bussiness (sic)". He quotes Eco as writing, "No
> se puede hacer una tesis sobre un autor extranjero si este no es leido en
> su lengua original." Curious. How odd to quote this sentence in Spanish
> translation (in the original: "Non si puo fare una tesi su un autore
> straniero se questo autore non viene letto in originale"), thus violating
> its very words! Michel goes on to do this again with respect to Nahuatl
> texts.
 
I did not suggest you to learn Nahuatl, because I know you manage that language very well. But I will get back to this point in the next paragraph. Here I want to discuss the Eco reference. First, it seems to me that the two (sic)s are a cheap and, yes, condescending trick. I live in a Spanish speaking country and so 'Humberto' for 'Umberto' is not that strange and that I wrote 'bussiness' instead of 'business' is not at all relevant to the point. We all make mistakes when we're writing messages on the internet and particularly when one is not a native speaker as I am. The point is to communicate and I think everybody understood I meant 'business' instead of 'bussiness'. But it is cheap to try to distract the reader of the real discussion and try to discredit the other discussant with pointing out minor issues that do not matter to the discussion.
Then the Eco issue, this is a non-argument, again, I suppose, to discredit me. I'm quoting the Spanish version of Eco's work because that's the version I have in my library. I am not writing a thesis about Eco or his books and so there is no reason whatsoever to quote him in Italian or even read the Italian version. My point, and that of Eco, is that one should not engage in research if the object of that research is written in a language one does not manage or if the most important literature about the object is written in a language one does not manage. Since neither is the issue in our discussion, I don't see how I am violating my own words.
 

> Actually, I even teach Nahuatl, and have been teaching and publishing on
> Nahuatl for decades, at Yale and elsewhere. I can highly recommend this
> beautiful language to you. Michel, you add that Eco's words do not apply
> to you, since you're an expert on Oaxacan cultures. And yet you cite
> Nahuatl at length (followed by the translation you used) in the posting,
> telling me not to worry because I can consult the excellent German
> translation by Lehmann. This is condescending, but at the same time
> reflects on your own attitude -- if you admit not knowing a language and
> not even being a specialist on the cultures involved, then surely you
> shouldn't be lecturing experts such as Michael Smith, who has worked on
> Aztec culture and archaeology for decades. At the very least, I would
> recommend adopting a more collegial tone and approach.
 
Like I said, I know you manage Nahuatl very well, but what is the point of mentioning Yale here? I think we all know what the point is, but the fact that one has worked or taught at an Ivy League university is not at all relevant to a discussion. We are all colleagues with a desire to understand Mesoamerican cultures and it doesn't matter whether one works at Yale or any other Institution (I refrain from giving the name of another university of ‘lesser’ status here in order not to annoy anybody).
Eco's words do not apply to me in regard to Nahuatl as I work -never do or did I use the word 'expert'- Zapotec (or maybe Oaxacan) history and historiography, which doesn't, of course, need to be an obstacle to citing Nahuatl sources as long as I make clear where I get the translation from and select a good translation, that is, one that is accepted as such within the academic community. This is the reason I decided on Lehmann and Kutscher's publication of the Codex Aubin which I think is very much accepted as a very good translation. In my opinion, standard academic procedure.
Then my supposed condescending remark. Here is what I say:
 
"Ooof, I hear you say. That's Nahuatl. But I would like to refer to Eco's statement about the matter of language....[..]. But you Gordon, as I, can read the excellent German translation by Lehmann and Kutscher ("Geschichte der Azteken", Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin, 1981). But I have pitty on my fellow academics and so will translate it into English:"
 
The 'you' in "hear you say" is a second person plural as I direct the message to you Gordon and "to others". This 'you' contrasts with the 'But you Gordon, as I," in the second part of the paragraph. I do this because most readers do not read Nahuatl and so would be in trouble as far as the Nahuatl citation goes (Ooof, I hear you say) and since few people may have a translation of the text in the Codex Aubin, I contrast 'the others' to us (you and I) cause WE can read the German translation, a privilege few of our colleagues have. I was supposing you would read German since, as I understand it, you live in Germany. So the last phrase, "But I have pitty..." refers to 'the others' who cannot read German and therefore I translated the German translation of the Nahuatl text.
No condescending from my part here. Or maybe to 'the others' who, I presume, don't read German, a presumption that could be considered condescending. But let's get back to the text: how can I, somebody working on Oaxacan cultures "lecture" experts like Michael Smith and, I suppose, you. Although I don't think I was lecturing but rather arguing, the whole point of us being academics is exactly that!!! Discuss, argue, disagree, agree and put forth new ideas. That is what academics is or should be about. If I, as a scholar working on Mesoamerica, cannot argue with you or anybody else because you are "experts" from important institutions, well then what is this about? And knowing Michael, I think he would be the first to recognize that; discussion is everything.
 
 
> Now to the points you raise:
> You say I use arguments that "don't seem to make any sense", adding by way
> of example that "nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups [Chalca,
> Huexotzinca, etc.] as 'Aztecas'. Here you have chosen to ignore the clear
> distinction I made between MODERN usage of the term 'Aztec' as an
> acceptable and convenient blanket term for (1) the Nahua peoples of the
> Valley of Mexico that made up the core of the Aztec Empire, and (2)
> differentiating labels when discussing individual groups. I stressed that
> distinction in my posting. You really shouldn't quote me out of context.
 
No, I did not say you use arguments that don't make sense. I implied it once in your argument of not using 'mexica' because people have trouble pronouncing it which I think cannot be an argument in an academic discussion.
In regard to my example I say "In Mexico, and I'm talking about the Mexican academic community, nobody will refer to these other Nahua groups as 'Aztecas'." Who is quoting who out of context here?
 
 
> Furthermore, I suggested that, if one so wished, one could even extend the
> usage to include the Tlaxcalteca and Huexotzinca in a CULTURAL sense, i.e.
> because they shared the key aspects of so-called Mixteca-Puebla and, more
> generally speaking, Aztec culture. Such features are recognizable in the
> archaeological and more general cultural record. I do not see any need to
> single the Tlaxcalteca out as Aztecs, but, as I said, I would have no
> particular objection to using the term in a cultural sense to include the
> independent Nahua areas. The difference between imperial and independent
> areas is fundamentally a political, not an ethnic or cultural, one.
 
I do have a problem with it and I think I made this clear, with examples, in my previous message. So no need, I think, to go over this again.
 
 
> Incidentally, you criticize my reference to the Tepanecs as Aztecs because
> they participated in and, indeed, co-ruled the Aztec Empire, saying that
> one could just as easily call the Tlaxcalteca 'Spaniards' because they
> participated in the Conquest. Hardly. The Tlaxcalteca neither participated
> in nor co-ruled the Spanish Empire, but were simply brief allies.
> Moreover, the Tlaxcalteca did not share Spanish culture.
 
Oh yes they participated in the Spanish Empire and their participation was not at all brief. Please read a book edited by Laura Matthew and myself called 'Indian Conquistadors' published by University of Oklahoma Press. Agreed, they didn't provide a viceroy, but the indigenous participation in the colonial system reached much further than simple fodder for the cannons.
 

> I stand by my statement of approval for Lockhart's use of the term 'Nahua'
> with respect to the Nahua of Central Mexico. This is self-explanatory, I
> think. Obviously, Lockhart's book 'The Nahuas After the Conquest' actually
> focuses not on the Nahua as a whole, but on the Nahua of the central area,
> as made clear in the secondary title. One might disagree with his use of
> the Spanish plural suffix -s in Nahuas, but that is another matter. As to
> Michael Smith's definition of 'Aztec': he is using it in the cultural
> sense I just mentioned, and this is perfectly defensible. The difference
> lies in the fact that Smith explicitly uses 'Aztec' to refer to the shared
> Nahua culture of the central valleys before the Conquest, and uses 'Nahua'
> in the same general sense as Lockhart for Colonial-period contexts.
 
It seems to me that in the vast literature produced by Lockhart his use of 'Nahuas' extends to any Nahuatl speaking group in Mesoamerica, including those in Guatemala (which is, of course, part of Mesoamerica) and certainly includes Tlaxcala which one may or may not include into 'Central Mexico'. Very few people have a problem with the use of 'Nahuas'. The problem is 'Aztec' for any group that lived in the 'Aztec Empire' or that "shared Nahua culture of the central valleys before the Conquest", which is unacceptable for the reasons I put forth in my previous messages.
 
 
> Gibson could have named his book 'The Aztecs [and their Descendants in the
> Valley of Mexico] Under Spanish Rule', but he opted instead for 'The
> Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of
> Mexico, 1519-1810', which, I think, makes quite clear what he is talking
> about. Aztecs, like Romans, did not simply disappear at the fall of their
> empires. Many Aztecs in the cultural and political sense lived on well
> into the late 16th century and adapted in varying degree to Spanish rule.
> It is not inappropriate to continue to call this population 'Aztec', even
> if their state had ceased to exist. He clearly meant 'the 'Aztecs and
> their descendants'. But this is a matter that should, of course, be
> decided and explained with care. Your talk about Lockhart the pupil
> teaching Gibson the master a thing or two is uncalled-for.
 
Somebody may have to explain to me why my reference to Lockhart correcting Gibson on a key term is "uncalled-for". There's no disrespect whatsoever in my phrasing. I used "star student" in regard to Lockhart which I'm sure he was, but it is also very positive. Then I used 'corrected' in regard to the use of the term 'Nahuas' instead of 'Aztecs', which I think is a correction. Had I used "pupil" or "teaching Gibson the master a thing or two", as you try to put in my mouth, it would have been disrespectful and uncalled-for. As it is, there is nothing of that.
The point of my arguments in my previous message was and is that 'Aztec' as such cannot be used for other groups than the Mexica because these did not come from Aztlan. It becomes even a more unlikely term for non-Mexica groups after the Conquest when 'Aztec' becomes associated with the Triple Alliance.
 

> You write, "No Chalca, no Texcocana (sic!), no Huexotzinca, no
> whatever-Nahua-group-you-want-to-fill-in-here, used the term 'Azteca' to
> refer to themselves, nor would they ever have done so." How do you know
> this? But, in any case, I made clear that I was referring only to the
> mythical past of these groups. You go on to say, "Chimalpahin is the first
> to identify himself as Chalca. Please do read the vast literature on this
> from Lockhart to Reyes Garcia to Schroeder."
 
How do I know this? Just show me one document in which a non-Mexica group identifies itself as 'Azteca'. I'm not talking about admiration for the Mexica culture or the Triple Alliance, I'm talking about them identifying themselves as 'Azteca'.
 

> Interesting that you should mention Chimalpahin, who was indeed a
> descendant of the lords of Chalco and very proud of it. What you don't
> mention is that he was also immensely proud of Aztec civilization and of
> the Aztec Empire, in which the Chalca came to participate actively and
> productively, and that he even made the famous pronouncement that adorns,
> e.g., the dedication page of Soustelle's ethnography (here in transl.),
> "For as long as the world shall endure, the honour and the glory of Mexico
> Tenochtitlan must never be forgotten." As Anderson and Schroeder justly
> claim (Codex Chimalpahin, 1: 9), "He is both proud and in awe of Mexica
> civilization", that is, of Aztec civilization as typified by its centre of
> power, Mexico Tenochtitlan. But I never claimed that he called himself an
> 'Aztecatl'. By the way, you say I should study Schroeder. If you glance at
> p. 10, fn. 22 of the Anderson and Schroeder edition above, you will find
> that Schroeder has read me!
 
True. But where does Chimalpahin identify himself as 'Azteca'? He doesn't, so why should we.
I don't get the point of the Anderson and Schroeder reference: I recommended you to read Schroeder, not the other way around (that's a gloves-off remark there). The idea of my argument was that "One of the main issues in Mesoamerica is the identity of the autonomous altepetl" and therefore we cannot use a term like 'Aztecs' for groups that are not 'Aztec' or if you want to see it in broader terms 'Mexica'.
 
 
> As for Aztlan and Teocolhuacan: First, there simply is no single
> (standard) version of the Aztlan migrations. Secondly, the initial phase
> usually involves Aztlan and/or Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc and/or
> (Teo)colhuacan, the staging areas for the great migration. We could
> indulge in nit-picking and say that the Aztecs are only the four calpoltin
> (which are not, by the way, "houses") from the island of Aztlan, and that
> the eight calpoltin joining them on the opposite bank are something else,
> but the fact remains that the eight calpoltin join up almost immediately
> with the original four groups, as personified by the four leaders named
> and depicted in various sources. As calpoltin belonging now to a single
> altepetl under four leaders from Aztlan, they then set off on their great
> trek. As such it is quite appropriate to refer to the migrating peoples as
> Azteca.
 
Read the transcriptions I included in the previous message. These texts make very clear that these indigenous groups themselves made the distinction between 'Aztecs' (those from Aztlan who later became Mexitin and from thereon Tenochca and Tlatelolca) and the other groups who were in (Teo)culhuacan. It's not a distinction I make, it's a distinction they make. Apparently this distinction was important and so we should consider it and not ignore it and call all of them 'Aztecs'.
 
 
> But there is more in the sources you cite: In the very same passage from
> Chimalpahin that you quote, we find the locative phrase 'Aztlan
> Chicomoztoc'. When two place names are juxtaposed in Nahuatl, it
> frequently means that the one -- usually the second place -- is part of
> the other. Thus, Mexico Tenochtitlan, Xochimilco Olac, Tollan
> Xicocotitlan, etc. This would mean that
> Quinehuayan/Chicomoztoc/Teocolhuacan (alternative names sometimes
> distinguished), a 'brokeback mountain' with a roomy cave (but apparently
> not cozy enough, judging by the quick exodus), was understood as a
> community belonging to Aztlan. Since the Codex Aubin, for one, states that
> the eight calpoltin emerged from this cave, they are obviously also
> Azteca.
 
See the above and my previous message.
 
 
> Anyway, let's stop the nit-picking. This is where the discussion ends for me.
 
I also hope it ends for me here.
 
 
Un fuerte abrazo a todos,
 
Michel

 

PS. While writing this I just got another message from Gordon but without having read it, I'm not going to answer it. I hope the people listed here will understand this. In my opinion and from what I read in Gordon's message I've answered here, it is becoming a personal issue and I'm not interested in that, apart from that I don't have time for it.

 

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20090225/21fbb370/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl