The Choctaws seem communist to me

[A.R.Amistad]

I've been researching the old Choctaw nation and it appears to me to basically be a communistic type of society, albeit with certain blemishes. They aren't as blatantly so as the Iroquois were, but property seems to basically be owned in common. Class division in this article is mentioned:



Within the clan-iksas, there was a simple class hierarchy structure, as well. The highest were the chiefs (mingos or mikos), comprised of grand chiefs, village chiefs and war chiefs. The second class was the Atacoulitoupa or "beloved men," and the third class was the tasca, or "warriors." The fourth class of men were called "atac emittla," which approximately means "supporting man," and members of this class were limited to those who had either not struck blows at all, or had only killed a woman or child.


But this seems to me to be nothing more than an idealist conception of class. These "simple class hierarchies" don't appear to be based on the means of production but on division of labor and on an individuals courage in battle. I notice a lot of similiarities between this society and Moore's mythical Utopia in some ways, particularly on their humanist moral standards which were communistic in essence. Maybe I'm missing something in this article but it seems to me that the Choctaws lived in a society where property was owned in common. Anyone else care to analyze?

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~mboucher/mikebouchweb/choctaw/claw2.htm

[Pavlov's House Party]

Marx and Engels called societies like the Choctaw "primitive communist" because they lacked classes organized around relationships with the means of production. In fact, humans have for the longest time lived in "primitive communist" societies; class society is a fairly recent development in our 200,000 year existence. Even when the Roman Republic was kicking around, most of Europe lived in primitive communist communities that share similarities with the Choctaw: Germanic tribes too would elect leaders who were re-callable and responsible for their actions at any time.

This is why every week or so we see the same threads about "Were the xxx a communist society?!", "Was xxx the Lenin of their tribe?!": the majority of the planet until recently have lived in relatively egalitarian communities without social classes.

[A.R.Amistad]

Marx and Engels called societies like the Choctaw "primitive communist" because they lacked classes organized around relationships the means of production. In fact, humans have for the longest time lived in "primitive communist" societies; class society is a fairly recent development in our 200,000 year existence. Even when the Roman Republic was kicking around, most of Europe lived in primitive communist communities that share similarities with the Choctaw: Germanic tribes too would elect leaders who were re-callable and responsible for their actions at any time.

This is why every week or so we see the same threads about "Were the xxx a communist society?!", "Was xxx the Lenin of their tribe?!": the majority of the planet until recently have lived in relatively egalitarian communities without social classes.

The thread which you are referring to was mine. It was called "was Hiawatha the Lenin of the Iroquois." This was because I have a theory (and so far it seems to me a very plausible theory) that the Iroquois Confederacy was founded in a social revolution.

[Zanthorus]

Yeah, there are tons of these kind of places around. Çatalhöyük (http://www.urkommunismus.de/index_en.html) is another good example :)

[Delirium]

Elaborate and rigid hierarchy usually only appears when a hunter-gatherer society becomes dependent on agriculture. Private property isn't so great when you have to carry it around everywhere. I noticed that the excerpt said nothing about the status of women.

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm not sure whether the Choctaw where hunter-gatherers. They were decendents of the Mississippian Civilization, which was very advanced.

[FreeFocus]

The Choctaw, like my nation, were a settled, agricultural nation. They weren't nomads or hunter-gatherers (at least not primarily - of course, there was a good deal of hunting). Our post-Mississippian societies did have some social stratification - chiefs, warriors, etc. - but there wasn't an underclass (e.g., peasants, serfs, or workers). Moreover, chiefs usually did not wield absolute power, or even decisive power. There were community councils and warriors had a lot of input in war.

Also, your theory about the Haudenosaunee/Five Nations being founded by a social revolution is actually what happened, depending on your definition of "social revolution." It wasn't anything in regards to property, but Hiawatha and Deganawida had the Five Nations end their wars and establish a more just society. That is not to idealize the Confederacy, because for a time they were expansionist, fighting the Hurons in the north and even the Cherokees in the south.

[Across The Street]

The article in the first post has no mention of property being owned in common.

All the references to their decision-making processes were pretty interesting though:

"Each miko present at the council had achieved his status by the manner in which he conducted his life. He was admired by many, the degree of admiration felt for him related directly to his stature among the people. A miko was not elected to his position, and did not inherit it; the position carried no term of office. For indeed, if his following for some reason deserted him, he immediately lost his stature and many Choctaws ceased to look to him for guidance."


"The legal system was established through custom, not legislation, with political, as well as national defense decisions made on the basis of consensus. Due to the combination of consensus based decision-making, the Choctaws' well documented fierce and unabiding emphasis on individual liberty, and the amorphous nature of formal leadership, the Choctaws necessarily developed an unequaled power of persuasion over their own, as well as outsiders. An early account of the Choctaws hypothesizes that within their own military ranks, the Choctaw leadership was forced to develop these powers of persuasion in order to get his men to follow orders."

[Pavlov's House Party]

That is not to idealize the Confederacy, because for a time they were expansionist, fighting the Hurons in the north and even the Cherokees in the south.

The Iroquois confederacy preyed upon smaller Algonquin tribes since its initiation, and when they contacted the British, they became a "puppet" state with muskets supplied to them to fight off the French supported Algonquins. It is entirely incorrect to idealize Native society like this. I say this being part Mohawk too.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Iroquois confederacy preyed upon smaller Algonquin tribes since its initiation, and when they contacted the British, they became a "puppet" state with muskets supplied to them to fight off the French supported Algonquins. It is entirely incorrect to idealize Native society like this. I say this being part Mohawk too.

Yeah, I disapprove of the Mexica Movement too that wants to praise one empire (the Aztecs, Mexicas) and denounce the other (the Spanish).

[Dimentio]

Yeah, I disapprove of the Mexica Movement too that wants to praise one empire (the Aztecs, Mexicas) and denounce the other (the Spanish).

I cannot understand why someone would want to idealise the Aztecs. Certainly, they had impressive architecture (which they basically inherited from previous Meso-american cultures). Their flower wars was a constant humiliation of defeated tribes. Most Non-aztecs aligned with the Spaniards when they came.

[Robocommie]

I cannot understand why someone would want to idealise the Aztecs. Certainly, they had impressive architecture (which they basically inherited from previous Meso-american cultures). Their flower wars was a constant humiliation of defeated tribes. Most Non-aztecs aligned with the Spaniards when they came.

Colonialism gave it new meaning. After the colonial experience, the Mexica became a symbol of native power and strength. It was a time of great civilization and cultural achievement, as well as a flourishing economy, that was entirely Mexican. The era was not of course without it's brutalities, but what empire or nation at this time was? The Triple Alliance was merely the dominant Nahuatl power, no different in it's region from the Venetians or the Florentines or the Milanese were in Italy - just city states vying for regional dominance.

And while the flower wars were a rough, ugly business, they did prevent outright war which would have devastated the area. I mean, I should point out that while the Mexica dominated, the Tlaxcalans weren't much different, culturally or politically.

Spanish cultural hegemony, and American economic hegemony, has forced Mexican society into a comparative relationship which is stacked against it, being a colonized society. The Mexica, while idealized, do provide a symbol of native strength and native dignity to contrast with that and form a unique ethnic identity. It's in no way a coincidence that Aztec symbolism became increasingly prevalent around the time of the Mexican Revolution.

[Robocommie]

The Iroquois confederacy preyed upon smaller Algonquin tribes since its initiation, and when they contacted the British, they became a "puppet" state with muskets supplied to them to fight off the French supported Algonquins. It is entirely incorrect to idealize Native society like this. I say this being part Mohawk too.

How exactly is he "idealizing" Indian society? He's acknowledging things about it. In light of how many American whites like to talk about Indians being savages perpetually stuck in the Stone Age, I think a little praise is warranted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Colum bus

[Plagueround]

The description that the OP is referencing (which I believe is from Angie Debo's Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Nation) is a description of what was known about the Chahta’ before much European contact and adoption of their customs. If I had my copy of the book handy, I would post references detailing the social structure and common land holdings, but for now I'll have to dig it out the next time I visit my family.

What is interesting about the Chahta' is that our transition to "modern society" did not follow the rigid model of "Primitive" communism>Feudalism>Capitalism, and was instead (and continues to be) directly influenced by the egalitarian and democratic roots of our post-Mississippian culture.

It should be noted that we, along with the Seminole, Cherokee, Muskogee (Creek), and Chickasaw, were part of the South-Eastern Indian nations referred to as the "Five Civilized Tribes" due to the voluntary adoption of many European customs and societal models. With the mixing our culture with Europeans, the Nations did see new forms of social stratification emerge, and many of the old clan systems did disappear. However, despite being considered the most successful of George Washington's assimilation project, the US government was increasingly frustrated at the Five Tribes refusal to fully adopt "civilizing things" like patriarchal family structures and private property, even going so far as to say that the Indians did not seem to understand that inequality was a cornerstone of civilization. Even after the Chahta' were removed on the Trail of Tears and Death, the new nation we set up in Okla Homma still featured land being held in common and was generally more egalitarian than Euro-American society at the time. The Five Tribes were also the first in the US to introduce free and compulsory education (the Cherokee being the very first). It was not until the Dawes Allotment acts that the government was able to forcefully break up these Nations and force them into private property ownership.

This is not to say that the Chahta' Nation was perfect, and we should not attempt to present it as something it is not. It was not ever a communist nation, and the society did have it's blemishes and inequality (the most notable being the adoption of Plantation Style Slavery). However, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the parts that were revolutionary and worth noting or even emulating; we should not pretend that there was nothing different or desirable about such a society.

If anyone has any additional questions about the Chahta' or any other Indian tribe, I'd be happy to answer or assist you in researching them.

[A.R.Amistad]

FreeFocus


Also, your theory about the Haudenosaunee/Five Nations being founded by a social revolution is actually what happened, depending on your definition of "social revolution." It wasn't anything in regards to property, but Hiawatha and Deganawida had the Five Nations end their wars and establish a more just society. That is not to idealize the Confederacy, because for a time they were expansionist, fighting the Hurons in the north and even the Cherokees in the south. YES I WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!:laugh:

Akso, it seems like a historical materialist revolution (changed material relations) by challenging the rigid hierarchies of nations in the are who were far more rigid, hierarchical and with class antagonisms. It simply wasn't industrial.


This is not to say that the Chahta' Nation was perfect, and we should not attempt to present it as something it is not. It was not ever a communist nation, and the society did have it's blemishes and inequality (the most notable being the adoption of Plantation Style Slavery). However, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the parts that were revolutionary and worth noting or even emulating; we should not pretend that there was nothing different or desirable about such a society.

ah, but not even communist society will be "perfect"

[A.R.Amistad]

The Iroquois confederacy preyed upon smaller Algonquin tribes since its initiation, and when they contacted the British, they became a "puppet" state with muskets supplied to them to fight off the French supported Algonquins. It is entirely incorrect to idealize Native society like this. I say this being part Mohawk too.

But all nations that chose to peacefully secede from the Confederacy were guaranteed that right in their constitution. It seems that there war against the Algonquin was fierce, but largely defensive, and certainly wasn't the product of a single, elite and small ruling class, but the collective effort of all.

[manic expression]

If anyone has any additional questions about the Chahta' or any other Indian tribe, I'd be happy to answer or assist you in researching them.
Thanks for the post. I was wondering, what are your views, and perhaps the views of American Indians more generally, on the policies taken by Washington toward Indians? I recently read about Washington's six-point plan, and was surprised at how it was far less chauvinist than the line taken by succeeding administrations (most notoriously Jackson and Van Buren). Do you think Washington's assimilation plan was more positive than later US programs? How do the Chahta' feel about the "Five Civilized Tribes" designation?

Also, I remember reading that the Chahta' were forced onto the Trail of Tears more gradually, and so there are still populations around their native lands (or at least not in Oklahoma)...is this true? If so, what effects has this had on the identity of the Chahta'? Is there a legal framework (and/or a desire) to move back?

Lastly, what is the status of the Chahta' language? I know it was once one of the more widespread native languages. Are Chahta' children learning it? Is it often spoken in Chahta' homes? And while this is a bit off-topic, what do you think would be the most useful American Indian language for a non-Indian to learn?

[A.R.Amistad]

Also, I remember reading that the Chahta' were forced onto the Trail of Tears more gradually, and so there are still populations around their native lands (or at least not in Oklahoma)...is this true? If so, what effects has this had on the identity of the Chahta'? Is there a legal framework (and/or a desire) to move back?

Sadly, this isn't so. The Choctaw aren't native to the Oklahoma region or any part of the West for that matter. The Choctaw lived in the regions around the Florida Panhandle, Southern Alabama and Mississippi, and there re virtually no Choctaw left there

[manic expression]

Sadly, this isn't so. The Choctaw aren't native to the Oklahoma region or any part of the West for that matter. The Choctaw lived in the regions around the Florida Panhandle, Southern Alabama and Mississippi, and there re virtually no Choctaw left there
What about this: http://www.choctaw.org/

[Dimentio]

Colonialism gave it new meaning. After the colonial experience, the Mexica became a symbol of native power and strength. It was a time of great civilization and cultural achievement, as well as a flourishing economy, that was entirely Mexican. The era was not of course without it's brutalities, but what empire or nation at this time was? The Triple Alliance was merely the dominant Nahuatl power, no different in it's region from the Venetians or the Florentines or the Milanese were in Italy - just city states vying for regional dominance.

And while the flower wars were a rough, ugly business, they did prevent outright war which would have devastated the area. I mean, I should point out that while the Mexica dominated, the Tlaxcalans weren't much different, culturally or politically.

Spanish cultural hegemony, and American economic hegemony, has forced Mexican society into a comparative relationship which is stacked against it, being a colonized society. The Mexica, while idealized, do provide a symbol of native strength and native dignity to contrast with that and form a unique ethnic identity. It's in no way a coincidence that Aztec symbolism became increasingly prevalent around the time of the Mexican Revolution.

The Mexica themselves were invaders who enslaved the local cultures and forced them into ritual slaughter. While it could be argued that they were culturally more similar to their oppressed subjects than the Spaniards, their cruelty were about the same level. The Aztecs were extreme in terms of human sacrifice and bloodshed. If Aztlan is going to build on that ethno-cultural ideal, it could legitimise all kinds of atrocities in the future.

[Raúl Duke]

AztlanQuestion:
Is Aztlan/Mexica even a relevant movement within Mexico/Central America itself?

Many cultures/nations were-are primitive "communist" to some degree...
Although in anthropology they use different terms to describe what Marx called primitive communist societies.

Personally, I think American history courses should have more details on Native American people than they usually have (and usually the info is framed on their relationships with Europeans and/or what was done to them by Europeans. In Puerto Rican and Latin-American history texts they tend to describe the indigenous societies before the arrival of the Europeans at least.)

[Zanthorus]

...what Marx called primitive communist societies.

IIRC that was actually Engels.

[FreeFocus]

Thanks for the post. I was wondering, what are your views, and perhaps the views of American Indians more generally, on the policies taken by Washington toward Indians? I recently read about Washington's six-point plan, and was surprised at how it was far less chauvinist than the line taken by succeeding administrations (most notoriously Jackson and Van Buren). Do you think Washington's assimilation plan was more positive than later US programs? How do the Chahta' feel about the "Five Civilized Tribes" designation?

Also, I remember reading that the Chahta' were forced onto the Trail of Tears more gradually, and so there are still populations around their native lands (or at least not in Oklahoma)...is this true? If so, what effects has this had on the identity of the Chahta'? Is there a legal framework (and/or a desire) to move back?

Lastly, what is the status of the Chahta' language? I know it was once one of the more widespread native languages. Are Chahta' children learning it? Is it often spoken in Chahta' homes? And while this is a bit off-topic, what do you think would be the most useful American Indian language for a non-Indian to learn?

George Washington was the original imperialist. During the American Revolution, he embarked on a scorched-earth campaign against the Six Nations, earning him the name "Town Destroyer" (many Natives still refer to US presidents by this title - an apt one, considering what the US has subsequently done to peoples around the world, from Nicaragua to Iraq to Afghanistan).

For any self-respecting Native, I'd say that the "Five Civilized Tribes" designation is not one to be proud of - the white concept of "civilization" at that time (and largely, still to this day) was racist. Additionally, you had citizens of our nations adopting disgraceful practices such as chattel slavery (many slaveholders in Indian nations were either half-Native, half-white, or majority white, by the way. Not a coincidence, as the racial stratification of white society made its way into our societies - thus "pure" Natives wielded less social power than Natives with white ancestry).

I know for a fact that there are Choctaw in Kansas, some still live in Mississippi, but not many. Most live in Oklahoma, as the ethnic cleansing by the US was fairly effective.

Pretty much all Native languages are in danger, given the effects of cultural imperialism and material oppression that leads to poverty, alcoholism, etc. In my opinion, the healthiest Native language is the Mohawk language, as they are taking active steps to pursue cultural revitalization and strengthening. The Navajo also enjoy a sizable population that speaks their language.

I'm not sure what the most "useful" would be. I really have a great deal of respect for Mohawks, whose language I would like to learn, in addition to my own. I suppose it depends on your region - learning Navajo if you live in Arizona is more useful than learning Abenaki.

[A.R.Amistad]

What about this: http://www.choctaw.org/


thats why I said virtually. Sure, there are a few pockets of Choctaw population left in the area, but there are only around 160,000 Choctaws left nationwide, so there can't be more than a few hundred, maybe a little more than a thousand at best.

[Palingenisis]

You may hate me for being a Maoist FreeFocus but as a working class member of the First Nations Im more intetested in your side of the story than anyone elses's.

[FreeFocus]

You may hate me for being a Maoist FreeFocus but as a working class member of the First Nations Im more intetested in your side of the story than anyone elses's.

lol, I don't hate Maoists. I think you guys can be too authoritarian at times, but Maoism offers some useful ideas in terms of national liberation and strategy.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Pretty much all Native languages are in danger, given the effects of cultural imperialism and material oppression that leads to poverty, alcoholism, etc. In my opinion, the healthiest Native language is the Mohawk language, as they are taking active steps to pursue cultural revitalization and strengthening. The Navajo also enjoy a sizable population that speaks their language.

I'm not sure what the most "useful" would be. I really have a great deal of respect for Mohawks, whose language I would like to learn, in addition to my own. I suppose it depends on your region - learning Navajo if you live in Arizona is more useful than learning Abenaki.

If you're ever in southern Quebec or even like upstate New York its not hard at all to find classes for the language. I took one a few years ago at the Mohawk reserve just outside Montreal, but for the life of me can't remember anything I learned.:)

Here's a cool site if any of you are interested in learning a little: http://www.native-languages.org/mohawk.htm

[Robocommie]

The Mexica themselves were invaders who enslaved the local cultures and forced them into ritual slaughter. While it could be argued that they were culturally more similar to their oppressed subjects than the Spaniards, their cruelty were about the same level. The Aztecs were extreme in terms of human sacrifice and bloodshed. If Aztlan is going to build on that ethno-cultural ideal, it could legitimise all kinds of atrocities in the future.

I think you're overstating the realities of the Triple Alliance - you have to keep in mind that some of the brutalities of the Mexica were intentionally overstated post-Conquest. Who, after all, did the Spanish defeat, and who were their allies? While the Tlaxcalans had legitimate grievances, you have to account for that bias in the historical accounts - especially since so many of the Mexica-written sources, the codices written on bark paper - were burned. Other claims may well have been inflated by the Mexica themselves, for example, the claims of 20,000 sacrificed in one day in a ritual to the solar god Huitzilopochtli is dubious simply because of the amount of time needed to actually sacrifice 20,000 people. It's been considered a possibility that the number of 20,000 was an inflation for propaganda purposes.

Besides, it might interest you to know that most of the sacrificed warriors were in fact warriors, and therefore part of the nobility. ;)

But seriously, you have to understand the sacrifices in the context of broader Mesoamerican culture, and realize the Mexica were not unique for this reason. What do you suppose happened to the captives of Mexica warriors taken by Tlaxcalans? The same exact thing. It's not like human sacrifice was unique to the Nahua, it was very common throughout pre-Columbia America, Mesoamerica in particular.

But the bottom line is, do you REALLY believe that modern day Chicanos are going to use the ritual sacrifice in Nahuatl culture to justify modern day atrocities? That's silly man. That was a religious thing, and most 20th century Chicanos don't worship Huitzilopochtli or Tlaloc. You might as well as say the same thing about Celtic nationalists, whose ancient forebears also practiced human sacrifice.

[Agnapostate]

Spanish cultural hegemony, and American economic hegemony, has forced Mexican society into a comparative relationship which is stacked against it, being a colonized society. The Mexica, while idealized, do provide a symbol of native strength and native dignity to contrast with that and form a unique ethnic identity. It's in no way a coincidence that Aztec symbolism became increasingly prevalent around the time of the Mexican Revolution.

And it's characteristic of nationalistic propaganda in a country whose politicians are rhetorically devoted to "mestizaje" and "La Raza," but essentially uphold white supremacy, and remain hostile (if not overtly so) to communities that identify as pure-blooded Indians even beyond their contempt for lower class "mestizos."

I do understand why progressives would be tempted to be sympathetic to Chicano nationalism, but many people who claim the U.S. Southwest as part of Mexico don't seem to understand that this is an affirmation of colonialism. The Mexican government of 1821 inherited what had been "Northern New Spain" from a European colonial power. Since Mexican society is characterized by the aforementioned racial stratification, the Spanish whites in the Mexican government were essentially a European colonial power themselves, and they continued campaigns of aggression against the indigenous groups of that territory.

The foundations for Aztec-centrism are built on the European-created nation-state of Mexico. Aztec identity is projected onto all Native Americans within the borders of Mexico, despite the fact that Aztec power was concentrated in the central-south region, that they weren't the most populous ethnic group in the majority of the regions that their rulers held tributary control, and that other Indian identities are obfuscated as a consequence of uniform national identity. This has been a problem for at least a century and undoubtedly earlier; Mexican-Indian populist Lazaro Gutierrez de Lara wrote in his The Mexican People that the northern Mexican Indians were "wild nomads of North America" and that the Aztecs and related Nahua and Mesoamerican societies were not Indians.

In Jaime R. Aguila's review of Jaime F. Torres's Return to Aztlan: A Journey in an Ancestral Past, he saw the same pattern:


The most glaring example is the consistent praise of the Aztecs as one of the seminal elements of Chicano identity, while disregarding other Native American cultures as barbaric. The Native Americans of Northern Mexico and the American Southwest are "quite warlike and steadfastly resisted civilization" (p. 125). In a separate passage, Spanish settlement efforts are admired for the "killing of some troublesome Indians" (p. 165). His adulation of the Aztecs (p. 363, p. 379) as the only Native American people worthy of praise minimizes the numerous contributions to the heritage of Mexicans and Chicanos from other civilizations such as the Apache, the Tarahumara, and the Concho.

I'm not really a fan of personal anecdotes, but it seems that other people are, so here's one: My paternal family traces back to Chihuahua and the El Paso region of Texas (and therefore, possibly New Mexico), directly in Apache, Tarahumara, and Concho territory. I've come to suspect that some of them left Texas and went into Chihuahua after the successful secession from Mexico, and that the Indians among them may have been genizaros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genizaro), since my family are detribalized mestizos. Now, I went to the Getty Villa about a week ago to see an exhibit about Aztec society with my aunt, uncle, and cousins, since my aunt and one of my cousins are big on "Chicano" sentimentality. My aunt several times mentioned that she was "close to tears" when she saw a first edition of the Florentine Codex (or one of the other antique codices), right in front of her. Such sentimentality for a culture that was not even her own! And all simply because some members of our family were from the European-created country of Mexico, hundreds of miles away from the Aztecs or any other Nahua ethnic group, and perhaps scarcely a few miles away from far more closely related ethnic groups in the U.S. I've never seen her exhibit any "Comanche pride."

Going back to the Mexica Movement, the same objection to this reoccurring ethnocentrism is well expressed here (http://bermudaradical.blogspot.com/2008/10/against-mexica-movement.html):


We are not one hegemonic cultural group, never were, even before Columbus, and that assumption is one the core racist ideas that many whites have about us. I am Menominee (Mamaceqtaw in our own tounge), always have been, always will be, and northern Wisconsin where we are from is practically as far away from central Mexico, the home of the Mexica, as Europe. I don't adopt the capitalist culture of Europeans, but equally, why should I adopt the one of the just as far away Mexica? We should celebrate, and try to preserve as much as possible, the wonderful indigenous diversity that still exists in Turtle Island and Abya Yala instead of imposing one of those cultures over all the others.

And while I'm not certain whether the Mexica Movement is serious about desiring the peaceable return of European-Americans to Europe or simply advocates that for rhetorical purposes to highlight the irony of European-Americans condemning "illegal immigration," as I do, if that was an actual goal, it would be a deeply reactionary and authoritarian one.


Question:
Is Aztlan/Mexica even a relevant movement within Mexico/Central America itself?

Those are explicitly Aztec concepts, so they wouldn't be related to Central America. To go back to another little anecdote, my maternal family are Guatemalan-Americans, and my grandmother's told me that many Guatemalans consider Chiapas to "rightfully" be a part of Guatemala, which is probably a sentiment strengthened by the fact that the inhabitants are Mayan and not Nahua. But these competing forms of nationalism are invisible to the white populists here in the U.S., who consider "these people" a homogenous bloc in the same mentality that got Chinese in WWII internment camps despite the fact that they had more cause to hate the Japanese empire than anyone else.

As for Mexico, my understanding is that it represents a form of nationalistic nostalgia more than anything else, comparable to neo-Confederate sentiments in the U.S. South (though probably weaker, honestly), sort of a, "Damn, too bad we lost that one," sort of thing. That won't stop rightists from mendaciously depicting that nostalgia as an organized conspiracy.


It's not like human sacrifice was unique to the Nahua, it was very common throughout pre-Columbia America, Mesoamerica in particular.

But the bottom line is, do you REALLY believe that modern day Chicanos are going to use the ritual sacrifice in Nahuatl culture to justify modern day atrocities? That's silly man. That was a religious thing, and most 20th century Chicanos don't worship Huitzilopochtli or Tlaloc. You might as well as say the same thing about Celtic nationalists, whose ancient forebears also practiced human sacrifice.

The Tlaxcalteca are a Nahua ethnic group, if you were implying otherwise, just to clarify. More to the topic, Gutierrez made an accurate observation when he wrote of the Aztecs and other Nahua peoples that, "At the time of the Conquest they were in full enjoyment of a civilization greatly superior in many respects to that of Teutonic Europe, and certainly superior in every respect to that of the Spanish nation which subjugated and enslaved them. Much has been written, particularly by Spanish historians, of the barbarous religious practices of these native races. It is true that the degraded native priesthood, who founded their wisdom-religion in Mexico more than three thousand years ago, practiced human sacrifice as did the British druids. Even so, this deliberate blood sacrifice of the Aztecs was intrinsically no more inhuman than the martyr holocausts of Smithfield, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, or the complicated cruelties of the Spanish Inquisition."

Charles Mann writes in his book 1491 (which you had said you'd drawn insights from) that, "Between 1530 and 1630, according to Cambridge historian V.A.C. Gatrell, England executed seventy-five thousand people. At the time, its population was about three million, perhaps a tenth that of the Mexica empire. Arithmetic suggests that if England had been the size of the Triple Alliance, it would have executed, on average, about 7,500 people per year, roughly twice the number Cortes estimated for the empire. France and Spain were still more bloodthirsty than England, according to [Ferdinand] Braudel."

The absence of widespread internal violence in Europe on a medieval scale (in recent years, anyway, with the exception of Yugoslavia, though both world wars were instigated by European nations), particularly internal violence motivated by adherence to primitive religious traditions, speaks for itself. With a higher historical rate of executions in England and higher rates still in Spain and France, and the modern European nonexistence of mass executions, religiously motivated or otherwise, the assumption that the Aztecs or other "savage" peoples would continue to engage in the same customs that they had centuries prior is inexplicable, particularly in light of the fact that they had already developed from nomadic tribalism to urban settlement and large-scale agriculture.

[Raúl Duke]

As for Mexico, my understanding is that it represents a form of nationalistic nostalgia more than anything else, comparable to neo-Confederate sentiments in the U.S. South (though probably weaker, honestly), sort of a, "Damn, too bad we lost that one," sort of thing. That won't stop rightists from mendaciously depicting that nostalgia as an organized conspiracy. To my understanding, the Aztlan, etc stuff to me seem to be more of a U.S.-born Mexican-American phenomenon than anything.

[Agnapostate]

To my understanding, the Aztlan, etc stuff to me seem to be more of a U.S.-born Mexican-American phenomenon than anything.

Well, there's technically a contradiction there in that U.S.-born people can't be Mexican-Americans because they're not Mexican unless they apply for Mexican citizenship. They mistakenly understand it as a racial classification rather than the national one that it is.

I'm unsure of its reliability, but I have seen a 2002 Zogby poll (commissioned by the group Americans for Immigration Control, so there you go), that indicates that this nostalgia is held by a majority of Mexicans:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/New+Zogby+Poll:+Mexicans+Say+Southwest+U.S.+Belong s+to+Them%3B...-a087466953


Zogby's poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "the territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Only 28 percent disagree, and 14 percent are unsure. A similar majority, 57 percent, agree with the statement, "Mexicans should have the right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission," while 35 percent disagree. Seven percent are unsure.

It seems odd that a lesser percentage would agree that Mexicans ought to be able to enter the United States than the percentage that believes the Southwestern territory "rightfully belongs to Mexico," so I think there was obviously some inaccuracy within the margin of error.