Aztecs and all that

[Gordon Whittaker]

Dear Magnus, dear colleagues,

Exactly. That's pretty much what I was getting at when I referred to the
macroethnic aspect of the Aztec question. I wanted to avoid opening up
another kettle of fish by mentioning explicitly, as you have now done
(thanks!), that ethnic identity is not just a matter of identity
classification and processing from within, but is also something
influenced by (stereotypical and other) perceptions from outside the
group, positive, negative, and mixed.

It's a very sensitive point because someone will likely protest that we
are trying to impose our perceptions and categories on others: "Hey, wait
a minute! Only we (or they) have a right to decide who we (or they) are!"
However that may be, for better or for worse it's always been a complex
and multidimensional issue -- and a two-sided sword.

Consider the case of the Byzantines, to take an example least likely to
provoke an emotional reaction. They regarded themselves as, and even
called themselves, 'Rhomaioi' -- Romans -- right up to the 15th century,
but we wouldn't call them that, although they had quite legitimate reasons
for doing so. From our perspective, however, the differences by the late
6th century had so accumulated (from a 1st-century basis) that it seems
far more practical and reasonable to call them something else -- thus,
'Byzantines'. For them, on the other hand, the political and cultural
continuity was paramount. I personally prefer to see them as
(Greek-speaking) Romans, in the same way that we can say that Alfred the
Great was just as 'English' as the Queen is today. But that's another
story.

I agree with you in thinking that there is much to be said for using the
term 'Aztec' as an inclusive label. In the debate that's been running over
the last few days, there have been some misunderstandings. No one has, to
my knowledge, claimed that the various Nahua groups called themselves
'Aztecs' in the 16th century. Like Michael Smith and you, I see this as a
useful cultural, and macroethnic, label -- our label, not one they
themselves used for the historical period (even if the Mexica did indeed
use it -- inclusively or exclusively -- for their mythical past), and one
that is well applied to the dominant culture of the Aztec Empire. The old
expression, 'Romans of the New World', is, in this respect at least, quite
apt. A 'Roman' could be African or Asian, or even British, in origin but
shared in the political and cultural identity we (and they) called
'Roman'.

Your point about the Otomi sharing this 'Aztec' culture is well-taken.
'Aztec' is not simply another term for Mexica or Nahua.

Best,
Gordon

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gordon Whittaker
Professor
Linguistische Anthropologie und Altamerikanistik
Seminar fuer Romanische Philologie
Universitaet Goettingen
Humboldtallee 19
37073 Goettingen
Germany
tel./fax (priv.): ++49-5594-89333
tel. (office): ++49-551-394188
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl