1. Omi and Winant (1986) introduced the concept of racialization and defined it as a process of racial categorization. In this book I develop their idea and propose that categorizing people into distinct racial groups is commonly achieved through the legal system.
2. The northwestern and northeastern coasts of Mexico were inhabited by groups that were not Chichimec (see Alonzo 1998; Spicer 1981).
3. Mexican Americans, like American Indians, are predominantly of White and Indian descent. Since 1810 Mexico’s national censuses have estimated that 90 percent of Mexicans are of indigenous descent (cited in Aguirre Beltrán 1946: 237), whereas by 1920 the U.S. Census estimated that 50 percent of American Indians were racially mixed and were one-half or less of Indian descent (cited in Forbes 1982:95).
1. In 1973 historian Jack Forbes wrote Aztecas del Norte: The Chicanos of Aztlán, offering a historical analysis of the Mexican Americans’ indigenous heritage. He also argued in favor of archaeological theories proposing that Mexican Indian groups had significantly influenced the cultural development of the Indians of the Southwest. In 1982 Forbes wrote Native Americans of California and Nevada. The second book no longer supported the Southwest-Mexico connections; nor were Mexican Americans included as part of the indigenous peoples of the Southwest.
2. Aztlán was often spelled “Astatlan” by sixteenth-century scholars (see Tibón 1983).
3. Richard Perry (1991) offers an alternate racial classificatory scheme in his study on the Western Apache. He posits that Athapaskan Indians who reside in Alaska, Canada, the United States, and Mexico (e.g., the largest groups: Apache, Navajo) are racially distinct from the rest of the Indians of the New World. Apparently, only the Athapaskan Indians share a common blood antigen called “albumin Naskapi” and twenty-four blood group frequencies. Thus, based on this biological information Perry concludes that the Athapaskans may be racially different from other indigenous peoples. Although he claims a separate racial origin for Athapaskan Indians, the governments where these Indians reside (Canada, the United States, and Mexico) do not distinguish these people as racially different from other Indians. For now the dominant perspective continues to be that the indigenous people of the New World belong to one race.
4. In 1936 Emil Haury (1992d:337) introduced the hypothesis that the Hohokam were descendants of the Cochise, a cultural complex located in southern Arizona and dated to approximately 7000 B.C. Although Haury has abandoned this position, it continues to be a popular hypothesis. Due to lack of evidence supporting this hypothesis, William Lipe (1978) and Haury (1992d) caution that at this time no connection between the Cochise and any other Indian group can be made with certainty.
5. It is likely that some Eastern Pueblo groups are also related to the Mogollon or Anasazi (i.e., Tewa, Tiwa, Jemez, Piro, Keresan) (Ortiz 1991:10). Winifred Creamer and Jonathan Haas (1991:95) conclude that there is sufficient archaeological evidence indicating that the Tewa, an Eastern Pueblo branch, descend from the Anasazi.
6. There are two major Jumano subdivisions: the puebloan and the nomadic. This classification is based upon the linguistic findings of sixteenth-century Spanish explorers, who reported that Jumano peoples spoke the same Uto-Aztecan language (Sauer 1934; Scholes and Mera 1940). Although this classificatory scheme continues to be the dominant perspective, William W. Newcomb (1986) proposes that material culture remains cast doubt on a common kinship origin.
7. Julian Steward (1933) proposes that the Mexican–Plains Shoshone debate most likely reflects a misclassification scheme. It is likely that archaeologists classified three unrelated Indian groups in the category Shoshone because they practiced similar forms of material culture.
8. See the Introduction, note 2.
9. On the basis of the similarity of events contained in the myths, Gillespie (1989:44, 115) proposes that Aztlán and Chicomoztoc are synonymous concepts, both referring to the homeland of the Chichimec peoples. Both versions claim that the Chichimec emerged from the earth in a place where seven underground caves were located. They then marched south.
Mexican historian Emilio Rodríguez Flores (1976) offers an alternate interpretation and states that archaeological data and Mesoamerican mythology clearly indicate that Chicomoztoc was founded after Aztlán. Though the origin myth of Chicomoztoc is similar to the myth of Aztlán, it nonetheless is the origin myth of a subdivision of the Chichimec and not the Mexica. Basing his analysis on archaeological data, Rodríguez Flores states that Chicomoztoc was founded around A.D. 1164 in Villa Nueva, Zacatecas, near the old Hacienda de la Quemada. It is the point of origin of the Zacateco and San Luis Obispo Indians. These two peoples were the last Chichimec groups to settle in Mexico and left Aztlán after the Mexica. When they entered Mexico, they ended their migration in Chicomoztoc and subsequently built a well-fortified city, surrounded by a massive stone fence. In the interior of the city they constructed pyramids, houses, and civic buildings (ibid., 43). According to Rodríguez Flores, the origin myth of the state of Zacatecas claims that the people of Chicomoztoc came from Aztlán (ibid., 44–46). This version locates Aztlán in California, around the archaeological zone where Shoshone sites have been discovered. The people who left present-day California were Chichimec. They crossed the Colorado River, migrated toward the Gila River in Arizona, and eventually settled in Culiacán for three years. They then left Culiacán and established a permanent settlement in Chicomoztoc. Some groups later chose to leave Chicomoztoc. Most families stayed in the present states of Zacatecas and San Luis Obispo; as they settled in different areas, they gave birth to new villages. Some of the families continued to migrate further south, however, and founded Tabasco, Jalpa, Juchipilo, Moyahua, El Tuel, and other smaller towns.
10. The Basques may have entered Catalonia as early as 2000 B.C. (Vinces Vives 1972:8). This is uncertain, however, as the sites attributed to them may have belonged to Tartessians.
11. The families and monarchies who ruled Muslim Spain changed over time (Levtzion 1973).
12. King Ferdinand inherited Catalonia and Valencia, and Queen Isabella inherited León. In 1512 Navarre was also annexed to their kingdom (Lynch 1964:4, 33).
13. Altamira (1988) proposes that Muslim cultural influences were insignificant outside of Granada. He alleges that Muslim cultural practices disappeared over time and that it is now difficult to recognize their traces except for historic architecture.
14. By 1526 all citizens practicing Islam or Judaism were forced to convert to Christianity; if they resisted, they were expelled from Spain (Lynch 1964:205).
15. Muslims also influenced Spain’s marriage legal system by introducing civil and common-law codes (Bravo Lira 1970).
16. In 1501 the Spanish crown prohibited the introduction of Moors, Jews, Herehes, and Christians as slaves in its New World colonies (Palacios 1988:8; Palmer 1981:3).
17. In Veracruz and the Yucatán Peninsula slaves served as farm workers and servants (Aguirre Beltrán 1946).
18. John Reader (1997:160) argues that agriculture may have started in the Nile region as early as 18,000 years ago.
1. Spaniards used formal schooling as a peaceful acculturating strategy. In 1523 Spain founded the first elementary school in Texcoco, now a district of Mexico City (Larroyo 1946:595). Within the next twenty years, many Spanish elementary schools were founded in Mexico City, Morelia, and Pátzcuaro.
2. The Laws of Burgos were an extension of the Siete Partidas protectionist legislation enacted in 1265 (Cutter 1986:8).
3. Under the Laws of Burgos, additional acculturation policies stipulated that (1) the education of the sons of chiefs must be entrusted to the church; (2) Indians must wear clothes; and (3) Indians must learn a trade (Borah 1983:23; Hanke 1949:24).
4. De Las Casas conceded to his opponents that Indians were culturally inferior and barbarous, a condition easily resolved by Christianizing them. He favored replacing the encomienda system with a mission system, in which Indians could live under the tutelage of the friars rather than the encomenderos (Gibson 1964; Wagner and Parish 1967). Eventually this recommendation was instituted, in northern Mexico and the southwestern United States (Engelhardt 1929; Polzer 1976).
5. In 1859 the pseudo-scientific school of thought that argued that Indians, Blacks, Asians, and racially mixed peoples were not human was struck its final blow when Charles Darwin published The Origin of the Species (Menchaca 1997:30). Darwin advanced an evolutionary theory and supported it with skeletal evidence. He argued that all races were of a modern human stock and had gradually, and in one line, evolved from a common origin. None of the races could be classified as premodern humans, including Indians.
6. The fact that the Aztec in the preconquest period had established Calmecac and Telpochcalli schools influenced the church to determine Indians were humans (León-Portilla 1975; Vigil 1984). Indians also were very instrumental in convincing the clergy of their human origins. The Indians demonstrated that they possessed sophisticated knowledge with respect to government, agriculture, architecture, and the arts and sciences. Two great Indian philosophers, Icazbalceta and Pablo Nazareo, came to the attention of the church and were used as evidence of the Indians’ rationality. Icazbalceta and Nazareo also helped Spanish historians reconstruct Mexico’s Mesoamerican heritage (Bayle 1931).
Father Zumárraga, a clergyman who believed in the Indians’ rationality, influenced the crown to establish a seminary for Indians. In 1536 the first Indian seminary was built in Mexico City (Bayle 1931:216, 218). It was called Santa Cruz and was located in present Tlatelolco.
7. In colonial times the Valley of Mexico included what today is Mexico City as well as unincorporated districts on the outskirts of the city (see Gibson 1964).
8. In 1648 the Yucatán Peninsula experienced several deadly epidemics (Perry and Perry 1988:40). The population was reduced by half and hundreds of villages were abandoned. The process of reallocating land replicated the policies in central Mexico.
9. Gibson (1964:236–256) asserts that the corregimiento was a less exploitative land and labor system. Nonetheless, he argues that Indians were exploited by the crown and church, because they were overworked and many died during the construction of bridges and tunnels.
10. Between 1633 and 1821 slaves from Asia were exported to Mexico (Aguirre Beltrán 1946:42, 101–102). Although the number of Asian slaves is unknown, they were brought in ships weighing 600 to 800 tons. Most of them came from the Philippines, Indonesia, China, Japan, Java, and Cambodia.
11. The mestizo population in 1646 is estimated at 109,042 (Aguirre Beltrán 1946:221). Scholars propose that it was much larger, however, because many light-complexioned mestizos were included as part of the White population (see Cope 1994; Meyer and Sherman 1995; Seed 1988).
12. Parts of this section previously appeared in Menchaca 1993, “Chicano Indianism: A Historical Account of Racial Repression in the United States,” American Ethnologist 20 (3): 583–603.
13. By the late 1600s, 42 percent of the Indian women in Mexico City were marrying non-Indians and 28 percent of the Indian males were marrying racially mixed women, either mestizas or mulattas (Cope 1994).
1. The Tarascans were from Michoacán and retained their independence during the height of the Aztec Empire. In 1479 the Aztec unsuccessfully tried to colonize the Tarascans and instead generated a legacy of mutual hostility (Meyer and Sherman 1995:65).
2. To the northwest of the Chichimec lived over forty-five indigenous groups which the Spanish categorized into five linguistic families, calling them Piman, Cahitan, Opatan, Serian, and Tarahumaran (Spicer 1981:10). This was a region of small, autonomous local communities, economically and politically independent of one another. On occasion groups who spoke the same dialect temporarily united for purposes of warfare. Their coalitions dissolved when the fighting was over.
The northeast was populated by over three hundred and fifty autonomous indigenous groups categorized into twenty-six ethnic families (Salinas 1990:28–29), the largest being the Comecrudos. This region was also part of the Seno Mexicano, which stretched in an arc from the Pánuco River near Tampico along the coast to the southern limits of Texas (Alonzo 1998).
3. In 1513 Juan Ponce de León set foot on Florida’s shores (Weber 1992:2).
4. Scholars disagree on several issues regarding Cabeza de Vaca’s account of the Narváez expedition. First, there is disagreement over where they landed in Texas (Bandelier 1990; see Chipman 1992). It may have been near Galveston or somewhere in southeastern Texas. Estimates of the size of the expedition range from 300 to 600 men (see Weber 1992:42–43). Finally, there are different interpretations of Cabeza de Vaca’s route in the Southwest. Some scholars propose that he walked through Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona (Bannon 1970), while others suggest that he walked only through Texas (Bandelier 1990; Chipman 1992).
5. Hernán Cortés is known to have explored Baja California in 1535 (see Engelhardt 1929:20).
6. For a detailed analysis of the exploration of North America, see Weber 1992.
7. Guachichiles, Caxcanes, and Zacatecos frequently intermarried and were related by kinship ties. Their origin was the ancient city of Chicomoztoc located in present Villa Nueva, Zacatecas (Rodríguez Flores 1976:46).
8. “Debéis estar locos, pues sin más que ustedes quieren que los matemos; nosotros por fuerza nos exponemos a la defense de nuestras tierras, pero a ustedes? ¿quién los ha llamado?” (cited in Rodríguez Flores 1976:76).
9. The mining camps of Santa Bárbara and San Bartolomé were founded in Chihuahua in 1566 (Chipman 1992:43–45). The colonists were soldiers, mining barons, and a few paid civilians. These settlements did not boom until after the Gran Chichimeca was stabilized (Powell 1952:29). Furthermore, in 1581 the royal government gave Franciscan missionaries permission to explore New Mexico (see John 1975:24). They were part of the Chamuscado-Rodríguez-López expedition.
Exploration voyages were also launched by sea. During the 1560s to 1570s, the Spanish crown commenced its colonization of Florida (Engelhardt 1929:13). The high point of the colonization of Florida, however, was in 1675 (Weber 1992:101).
10. Unlike Mexico’s central valley, where the repartimiento system was dismantled in 1633, in the north the crown allowed Spaniards to force Chichimec Indians to work without pay until the late 1600s (Gibson 1964).
11. Engelhardt (1929:13) proposes that the first mission in northern Mexico was established among the Indians of Florida in 1577. Weber (1992:29) suggests that it was founded in 1595. A common point of disagreement is whether a mission began when missionaries started evangelizing the Indians or when a building was erected. For a discussion of this interpretive difference, refer to Polzer (1976).
12. The four hundred families came from the state of Tlaxcala, from the towns of Tlaxcala, Tepeyanco, Altihuetzía, Chiantempan, Huamantla, Ixtacuixtla, Hueyotlopan, Atlangalepec, and Totolac (Hernández Xochitiotzin 1991:4).
13. This information is based upon the official records found in the historical archives of Tlaxcala, Archivo General del Estado, Ave. Juárez #16, Colonia Centro Tlaxcala, Tlaxcala Mexico.
14. In his historical ethnography of the Tlaxcalan Indians of Mexquitic (San Luis Potosí) Frye (1996) concludes that by the mid-seventeenth century Spain had broken most of its agreements with the Tlaxcalans. This occurred after a large number of non-Tlaxcalan settlers arrived in San Luis Potosí. Although most Tlaxcalan land grants were honored, the royal government allowed others to set overlapping claims. The government also broke its promise to exempt the Tlaxcalans from paying tribute.
15. A village by the name of Tacuitapa was also mentioned as part of the first Tlaxcalan pueblos in the far north (Hernández Xochitiotzin 1991). It is uncertain whether such a settlement was established, since other scholars do not refer to this town (Alessio Robles 1934; Frye 1996).
16. The census of 1646 for North Mexico does not include the unconquered indigenous populations.
17. Scholars disagree on the size of Juan de Oñate’s colony of 1598. Spicer (1981:156) and Weber (1992:81) agree that around 400 soldiers plus the families of 130 of the men joined the colony. Bannon (1970:36) estimates that 129 heads of households plus their families formed the colony. Gutiérrez (1991:103) states that only 19 of 130 soldiers brought families.
18. Chipman (1992:46) proposes that the trek north began from an outpost called Gerónimo, near Santa Bárbara.
19. Bannon (1970:36) states that the first colonists arrived in New Mexico in mid-June 1598.
20. Villagrá identified the women as the wives of Don Francisco de Peñalosa, Alonso Sánchez, Zubia, Don Luis Gasco, Diego Núñez, Pedro Sánchez Monrroi, Sosa, Pereira, Quesada, Juan Morán, Simón, Pérez, Ascencio de Archuleta, Boca-negra, Carabajal, Romero, Alonso Lucas, San Martín, Cordero, the caudillo Francisco Sánchez, Francisco Hernández, Monzón, Alonso Gómez Montesinos, Francisco García, and Bustillo (Villagrá 1933:224–225).
21. Villagrá (1933:224–225) proposes that the Spanish soldiers did not have to set Acoma on fire because it was only a matter of time before the entire village surrendered.
22. Bannon (1970:38) states that the colonists arriving in 1600 were separated and that only seventy-eight settlers plus several friars arrived at this time. The second part of the colony arrived later, with an undetermined number of settlers.
23. Mission Corpus Cristi de la Ysleta was founded in 1682 (Spicer 1981:163).
24. Don Diego de Vargas was appointed governor and captain-general of New Mexico on 18 June 1688 (Bannon 1970:86).
25. The 1804 census of New Mexico was published in a report written by Don Pedro Bautista Pino (in Carroll and Haggard 1942).
26. Metz (1994:21) states that El Paso Valley remained part of New Mexico until 1824.
27. Don Pedro Bautista Pino reported in 1804 that there were 26 Indian pueblos and 102 settlements in New Mexico (Bautista Pino 1812:217).
28. Bowden (1971:156) states that San Elizario was founded in 1780.
29. Two additional presidios were located near El Paso on what today is the Mexican side of the border (Bowden 1971:156).
30. Hacienda Nuestra Señora de la Soledad de los Tiburcios was founded in 1724 by Antonio Tiburcio Ortega, one of the grandsons of Captain Francisco de Ortega (Hendricks and Timmons 1998:11). Francisco was a mulatto from Zacatecas who later moved to New Mexico and became a distinguished person. During the mid-1600s, he was granted many military honors for his bravery. Francisco’s son Pablo became alcalde (mayor) of the Jemez district, and after the Pueblo Indian revolt his grandson Diego became justice of the peace for Ysleta, Senecú, and Socorro. In 1762 the hacienda had a total population of 210 (ibid., 12). It was abandoned after fifty-three years of continuous occupation due to a series of devastating Apache attacks.
31. See Weber (1992:195) for a demographic description of New Mexico in 1765.
1. In Arizona Franciscans replaced the Jesuits in 1767 (Engelhardt 1929: 306), when the Jesuit order was expelled from Mexico.
2. “Tejas Indians” is a general term applied to Indians native to Texas. The Coahuiltecans were the largest subdivision of the Tejas (Salinas 1990).
3. See Beers (1979) for a review of the political reorganization of Texas between 1689 and 1836. Over time, Texas was under the direct command of either the viceroy or the king. Furthermore, its political jurisdiction was reconfigured six times, making Texas a separate province or part of the internal or eastern provinces.
4. Bannon (1970:114) states that only four missions were founded among the Caddo Indians of the northeast.
5. Castañeda (1936:35) proposes that only thirty-eight of the seventy-two settlers in Alarcón’s colony were not Indians.
6. Chipman (1992:117) claims that Alarcón’s party arrived in San Antonio on 25 April 1718.
7. A villa was a settlement larger than a town and smaller than a city (see Graham 1994; Hendricks and Timmons 1998).
8. After Don Pedro de Rivera’s military inspection of 1727, the soldiers stationed at La Bahía were reduced to twenty (Bannon 1970:123). Rivera reported that La Bahía was excessively militarized for a zone surrounded by peaceful Indians.
9. Chipman (1992:180) estimates that only 200 neophytes were regular residents at the missions of La Bahía.
10. After their initial founding, the settlements at La Bahía were moved to different locations. The presidio and Mission Espíritu Santo were moved from the Guadalupe River to the San Antonio River (Beers 1979:96; Chipman 1992:147–150, 201). After three moves, Mission Refugio was established in present Refugio.
11. See Beers (1979) for a history of the political shifts in the governance of the Province of Texas and Nuevo Santander.
12. In 1684 six missions were established on the Mexican side of the border between Texas and Chihuahua, at the conjunction of the Rio Grande and the Concho River (Castañeda 1936:328). This region was known as La Junta. Mission Cíbola was established over half a century later on the U.S. side of the border. It was also part of the La Junta colonization project.
13. The exact date when Mission Cíbola was destroyed is unknown since Captain José Idoyaga arrived at the mission after the inhabitants had been dead for what appeared to be a long time (Castañeda 1938:224). Very little is known about Mission Cíbola because most of the documents concerning the mission were burned.
14. In 1748 several missions were established in present Milam County along the San Gabriel River (Bannon 1970:136; Castañeda 1938:362–387). The missions were later relocated to San Marcos and New Braunfels. Ten years later the mission neophytes and church belongings were transferred to the newly established mission at San Sabá.
15. In 1759 Presidio del Norte was initially founded on the south side of the Rio Grande (Beers 1979:97; Castañeda 1938:223–232). After Apaches destroyed the presidio, it was moved across the river to what is today U.S. soil.
16. Over sixty soldiers and their families lived in Presidio de Los Adaes and thirty-one soldiers and their families in Presidio de San Agustín de Ahumada (Castañeda 1939:34, 39). The missions were also abandoned, and the few neophytes living there were taken to San Antonio (Castañeda 1936:231).
17. The Spanish plaza in Nacogdoches originally stood in the center of town. In the 1930s it was moved near the cemetery. This information was provided by Carolyn Spears, curator of the Stone Fort Museum, Nacogdoches, Texas.
18. No racial or ethnic data were included for 81 persons (Tjarks 1974:324–325).
19. Data were not offered for 62 inhabitants. Percentages are based on a total of 457 inhabitants (Tjarks 1974:325).
20. Spicer (1981:123) states that in the late 1600s visitas were also established among the Pima of Arizona in Quiburí, Gaybanipitea, and Gubo.
21. Swanton (1984:363) argues that the first mission buildings in Arizona were erected in 1731.
22. There is disagreement over how many visitas were established in Arizona. Engstrand (1992:179) claims there were ten, Kessell (1976:7) fourteen, and Dobyns (1962:23–25) nine.
23. Scholars distinguish between the Upper Pima, who lived in Arizona, and the Lower Pima, who lived in Sonora (see Spicer 1981).
24. In 1776 temporary presidios were established in the Santa Cruz and San Pedro valleys. After a series of sustained attacks, the presidio at Sópori was moved to Sonora and the presidio along the border near San Bernardino was abandoned and later transformed into a ranch (Beers 1979:311; Kessell 1976:98–99, 109, 169, 245).
25. Navajos sometimes also attacked the colonial settlements, but for the most part they remained at a distance and only on occasion migrated south (Officer 1987). Their history is more closely intertwined with the colonial settlements of New Mexico.
26. Often titles were not issued because people abandoned their ranches after Apache attacks and new claimants moved when an area was recolonized (Beers 1979). Allegedly many ranches were not inhabited long enough to merit issuing property deeds.
27. One league amounted to approximately 1,100 varas or 4,438 acres (see Margadant S. 1991:91).
28. Rancho San Bernardino was located on the border between Arizona and Sonora (cf. Beers 1979:310; Engstrand 1992:179; Kessell 1976:10).
29. Dobyns (1976:171–173) claims that census records from Presidio Tucson indicate that the officers’ families were Spanish.
30. There is no evidence indicating that the soldiers who married Indian women were issued property deeds.
31. Two missions located on the border between Arizona and California, La Concepción and San Pedro y San Pablo de Bicreñer, lasted a short period (Kessell 1976:7; Weber 1992:259).
32. On the Mexican side of the border between Arizona and Sonora several other visitas were converted into mission pueblos (see Kessell 1976).
33. The Tumacácori land grant covered part of the mission land of the abandoned visita of Calabasas and part of the nearly dismantled mission at Guevavi.
34. Weber (1992:233) found that in 1793 several Apache rancherías settled near Tucson and formed colonial alliances. The number of inhabitants is estimated to have reached 2,000.
1. The founding of the Baja California missions began in 1683 (Engelhardt 1930:82–84).
2. Engelhardt (1929:383) proposes that there were a total of eighty-four colonists in the Rivera y Moncada division, while Chapman (1930:222) proposes there were only seventy-two. Engelhardt may have counted the number of people who departed from Mission Velicatá, while Chapman only counted those who arrived.
3. Chapman (1930:221) claims that thirty-eight of the men on the San Carlos survived, while Bannon (1970:157) argues that most of the men died.
4. Weber (1992:41) proposes that the Indians who first contacted the Spanish in San Diego were called Ipai, although he recognizes that they were part of the Yuma linguistic family.
5. The Yuma were an ethnic subdivision of the Yuman Indians of Arizona.
6. The Anza expedition also provides information on intertribal relations in Arizona and California (see Bolton 1966). According to Anza in 1774 there were over 3,500 Yuma Indians along the Yuma Crossing (Bolton 1966:94). Most of them were gentle and peaceful. The Gabrileño Indians of Mission San Gabriel, however, considered the Yuma to be their enemies and were not pleased that Chief Palma was a Spanish ally.
7. Chapman (1930:308) argues the Anza’s colony arrived in San Gabriel on 4 January 1776; Bannon says that they arrived on 2 January (1970:163). Weber (1992) gives no exact date.
8. Historians disagree on the size of the party brought by Rivera y Moncada in 1781, because the records were destroyed and later reconstructed based on missionary accounts. Weber (1992:259) argues that there were sixty in the party, including families and soldiers; Engelhardt (1930:387) claims there were forty-two soldiers, accompanied by thirty-two families; and Chapman (1930:337–338) believes there were forty families and eleven or twelve soldiers.
9. This information was obtained from Engelhardt (1930) and from El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historic Monument, Los Angeles City Government. The city government of Los Angeles has dedicated a plaque in Plaza Olvera to the founders of Los Angeles, which provides information on their race, gender, and age, based upon the 1781 census of California.
Bancroft claims that most of the people who participated in the founding of Los Angeles were part of the Rivera y Moncada expedition and were afromestizo (see Engelhardt 1930:705), while Forbes disputes this and claims that only twenty-six of the forty-six persons who founded Los Angeles were afromestizos (cf. Forbes 1968:12). Except for one Chinese and one Spaniard, the rest were Indians and mestizos.
10. Chapman (1930:385) offers a slightly larger population estimate of 1,200 for 1793.
11. Bowman uses Bancroft’s notes on the missions to estimate the size of the mission Indian population in 1790. Bowman’s tabulation differs slightly and totals 7,718 (Bowman 1958:148).
12. Bowman’s statistical registry is based upon a revision of the documents used by Hubert Howe Bancroft to reconstruct the size of the neophyte mission population from 1769 to 1774 (see Bowman 1958). Bowman’s tabulation is slightly different from Bancroft’s. According to Bowman, Bancroft made minor mathematical errors, which he revised.
13. For a comprehensive register of the California rancherías, see Merriam (1955:188–225) and Engelhardt (1930:643, 644, 686–689). See also Byrne v. Alas et al. (1888:525), for a U.S. legal definition of a Spanish and Mexican ranchería. Merriam reconstructed a registry of the rancherías of California based on mission records. Although the records are incomplete, they cover the rancherías associated with nineteen of the twenty-one missions. Merriam states that the Christian rancherías were part of Spanish municipalities, but he does not clarify whether these communities were registered in the presidios. A comparison of this registry with Engelhardt’s analysis (1930:638–652) of Father Tapia’s 1807 report on the California rancherías provides an insightful description of the Indian ally communities. For example, Father Tapia reported that by 1807 all of the Indians of the Santa Bárbara and Santa Inés regions lived in Christian rancherías.
14. The missions at Ventura, Santa Bárbara, La Purísima, San Miguel, Santa Inés, and San Fernando were specifically built for the Chumash Indians (see Engelhardt 1913, 1930; Hoover, Rensch, and Rensch 1966; Menchaca 1995). At San Fernando most of the neophytes were Chumash, but among them were other tribal Indians.
15. The county of San Luis Obispo is on the border between central and northern California (Menchaca 1995). Chumash and Salinan Indians inhabited this territory during the Spanish period.
16. For different interpretations of which settlements functioned as towns, see Bannon (1970:164), Mason (1986:5), Robinson (1948:12), and Weber (1992:262).
17. Regional California censuses indicate that a large percentage of the population was afromestizo. In Santa Bárbara 19 percent of the residents in 1785 were afromestizos; in San José 24 percent and in Monterey 18 percent in 1790 (Forbes 1966:240, 241). Likewise, the population registry of the founders of Los Angeles indicates that 59 percent were afromestizos (El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historic Monument, City of Los Angeles).
18. Sánchez (1986:16) proposes that twenty-five ranches were established during the Spanish period, Engstrand (1991:39) thirty-four, Robinson (1948:49–56) thirty, Rush (1965:1) twenty-four, and Cowan (1977:139) thirty-three.
19. Though the children of Black slaves and Indian women were born free, they were required to pay the same taxes as Indians since legally they belonged to Indian communities (McAlister 1957:43–54).
20. The corregimiento system was dismantled in 1786 under the intendancy laws (Gibson 1964:84).
21. Hutchinson (1969:80) offers a different date, stating that Indians were released from paying tribute on 26 May 1810.
1. In 1823 Sonora and Sinaloa were joined as a state (Officer 1987:18, 117). Between 1823 and 1830 Sonora and Sinaloa were separated, rejoined, and finally declared separate states.
2. At the end of the colonial era, the number of slaves in Mexico is estimated to have ranged from 6,000 to 10,000 (Aguirre Beltrán 1946:236–237; cf. Meyer and Sherman 1995:217).
3. Since the late Spanish period, many have considered the mission system an outdated paternalistic institution. For some liberal thinkers the mission system obstructed the acculturation of the Indians, while others who were unconcerned with the welfare of the Indians considered it an obstacle in the conversion of the Southwest into a large-scale private family agriculturalist or ranching economic system.
4. The secularization orders were originally drafted under the Plan de Iguala in 1821 (Engelhardt 1913:108).
5. Of the five-member committee elected to select a delegate to Congress in California, three were former mission Indians (Engelhardt 1913:150).
6. Vicente Guerrero was born in Tixtla, Mexico. He was of Spanish, Black, and Indian descent. In 1810 he enlisted in José María Morelos’s troops fighting in favor of Mexican independence (Appiah and Gates 1999:882–883). By 1816 he had become a general of the rebels and the main military strategist of the movement for independence (ibid.). In 1821 his troops joined forces with General Agustín de Iturbide; their combined armies successfully defeated the royal troops, winning independence for Mexico (Meyer and Sherman 1995:293–295). Guerrero afterward became one of the major figures in designing the new republic’s provisional constitution. In 1829 he became president of Mexico, but was shortly thereafter thrown from office when Anastasio Bustamante, his vice-president, executed a successful coup d’état (Weber 1982:31).
7. Engstrand’s Spanish text on racial classifications in Arizona reads:
…todo el sistema de clasificación racial había sido bastante arbitrario, y lo fue siendo cada vez más a medida que se aproximaba el fin del periodo colonial. El padre Francisco Iturralde, de la misión de Tubutama, ni siquiera intentó dejar constancia del origen de los habitantes de su jurisdicción a los que calificó bajo el epígrafe de “gente de razón,” arguyendo que no disponía de tal información. El censo de Tumacácori [1796] que confeccionó el padre Gutiérrez proporciona una información tan vaga como la anterior. Incluye a 29 personas el la categoría de “vecinos,” la mayoría de ellos aparentemente peons y ayudantes. (Engstrand 1992:254)
8. In 1910 the federal government allowed census enumerators to count people on the basis of language in order to determine the size of the aboriginal Indian population (Mörner 1967:145–169).
9. Chapman (1930:384) offers a slightly larger estimate of 3,270 for California’s population in 1820.
10. The Papago are related to the Pima and belong to the Pima branch of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock (Swanton 1984:357). The Cocomaricopa are closely related to the Yuma and are part of the Yuman linguistic stock, a part of the Hokan family (ibid., 349, 354).
11. For a detailed description and analysis of the Indian communities in New Mexico during the Mexican period, see Carroll and Haggard (1942). They provide a translation and analysis of many Mexican documents containing census and ethnographic descriptions as well as copies of the original Mexican documents.
12. During the Mexican period, the state government in Texas prohibited the use of racial distinctions in enumerating the population (Alonzo 1998:48).
13. Weber (1982:4) estimates that in the 1820s most Mexican citizens were acculturated Texan Indians and less than 2,500 were not of that heritage.
14. The population of El Paso Valley and the surrounding communities is estimated to have grown to 8,000 by the 1820s (Weber 1982:4–5) and Laredo to 2,041 (Alonzo 1998:41).
15. Bolton (1921), Ezzell (1974), Kessell (1976), Doyle (1989), and Johnson (1989) contend that many of the Indians who were Christianized by the Spanish already practiced some form of hierarchical political structure (Deloria and Lytle 1983; Johnson 1989; Merriam 1955).
16. Portions of this history of schooling in the Southwest appeared in an earlier version as “The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Racialization of the Mexican Population,” in The Elusive Quest for Equality: 150 Years of Chicano/Chicana Education, ed. José F. Moreno (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Educational Review, 1999), pp. 3–29. Copyright 1999 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.
17. After the 1793 decree, the private schools in San Antonio received greater financial support from the local assembly and were provided school supplies, including books, charts, paper, pencils, and slates (Menchaca 1999:12).
18. Not until the federal government passed the act of 1836 was schooling made compulsory and the local governments made responsible for levying taxes to pay for public education (Tyler 1974:209).
19. A league based on Mexican measurements is 2.6 miles or 4,438 acres (Engstrand 1991:46; Margadant S. 1991:91).
20. José Joaquín Ortega was a government administrator and successful otter-hunter and entrepreneur. He served several terms as justice of the peace of the California ranches. He was the son of José María Ortega, a corporal of the Santa Bárbara company, who upon retirement obtained Rancho Refugio. José María was a distinguished officer.
José Joaquín’s grandfather, José Francisco, was also a prominent person. Besides being one of the first pioneers in California, José Francisco was a member of his town assembly and a judge and served several terms as head peace officer of the ranches of California. Throughout his lifetime he served as a military officer stationed in several missions (Bancroft 1964:I-Q 760–761).
1. Ysleta was separated from New Mexico in 1823 and annexed to the state of Chihuahua (Bowden 1971:157).
2. After Mexican independence, communities in the Southwest were distinguished based on population size and political organization. A village between 800 to 2,000 people was governed by a justice of the peace, who possibly had assistants (Hendricks and Timmons 1998:41–42; cf. Carroll and Haggard 1942:209–210). A town or city exceeding 2,000 had a town assembly (ayuntamiento) consisting of a mayor and six elected officials (Hendricks and Timmons 1998:41–42). Communities of less than 800, called lugares (places), were governed by the nearest town with an elected assembly.
3. William W. Morrow’s estimate (1923) is based on congressional reports. Morrow was a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge in 1923. This estimate does not include the land grants in Arizona.
4. Sixteen land grants were issued in Arizona during the Spanish and Mexican periods (Mattison 1946).
5. The San Pedro land grant was located along the current Sonora-Arizona border (Officer 1987).
6. Bautista Miller was the first non-Indian to live in what today are Liberty and Orange counties. This area was inhabited by the Orcoquisac Indians. In late 1778 Gil Y’Barbo’s exploratory expedition found him living there (Castañeda 1939:324–326). Miller was an English castaway who had fled Jamaica. Under Spanish law it was illegal for foreigners to live in Texas without approval of authorities. Miller relayed to Y’Barbo his account of how he had arrived in Texas. He had boarded a ship in Jamaica with five of his slaves. The captain robbed Miller and forced him to abandon ship at the mouth of the Trinity River. Miller also reported that this was a rest stop for English slave ships (Block 1976).
7. The term “bachelor” appears to have been used in a gender-neutral manner: Article 15 defines as bachelors “all those who are alone, or forming a part of no family” (State of Coahuila and Texas Law of Colonization of 1825, cited in Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, p. 101). This interpretation is supported by Texas land grant documents indicating that the Mexican government awarded women land grants (TGLO-SMTT).
8. Among the Indians of Mission Espada who applied and obtained deeds were Juan Gomez, Ascencion Garza, Nanuzal, Josefa de la Garza, Simon Gomez, Gaspar Hone, Vicente Gotarz, Jose Maria Condenar, Franco Arando, Luciano Navarro, Jose Maria Escaleta, Vicente Micheli, Ventura de la Garza, Maria de la Garza, Juan Martin de Bermudez, Victoriano Zepeda, Alexaj, Jose Maria Hernandez, Miguel Triciegin, Maria del Refugio de la Garza, and Josefa Maria Hernandez. When the petitioners met with Saucedo, they brought witnesses to support their claims. Most of the witnesses were petitioners themselves; others also served as witnesses, however, including Gaspar Flores Vicente, Goraceig, Delgados, Maria Cardenas, Clem, Francisco Fuardo, Calena, Felipe Frasinga, Mariano de Cansenas, Sonacio Acchesj, Jose Antonio de la Guera, Francisco Arguello, Francisco Ravier, Buntillo, Jose Viciano Navaro, Jose Maria Anocha, Ignacio Chavez, Jose Maria Asuba, Fernando Rodriguez, Francisco de Fevicado, Fernando Rodriguez, Francisco Javier Bustillo, Jose Maria de Gazares, Jose Maria Axocha, Jose Maria Escalena, Jose Fandoval, and Juan Cortina. Several of the witnesses did not know how to write and instead entered iconic signatures (Texas General Land Office Archives, File 121:45, “Espada Mission Land Records”).
9. Article 32 of Texas’s Law of 1825 exempted immigrants from paying taxes (cited in Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, p. 104).
10. During the Spanish period, land was distributed in South Texas on a seniority basis. The founding settlers received 2 leagues for pasture (8,876 acres) and 1,500 acres for planting (Alonzo 1998:39). Settlers who arrived later received the same amount of land for pasture but only 750 acres for planting. Often, however, exceptions were made for subjects favored by the royal government, who received over 5 leagues.
11. Metz (1994:19) argues that in 1790 a land grant extending from El Paso to Arizona was issued to Francisco García, where he established Rancho de Santa Teresa. I have been unable to find any other source to verify this claim.
12. Plans for the secularization of the California missions were based upon committee recommendations issued beginning in 1825 and were published in reports titled “Regulation of the Missions” (Hutchinson 1969:255).
13. In contrast to Pío Pico, Figueroa is considered by most historians to have been a fair governor and defender of the Indians. Figueroa was known to be proud of his Indian heritage and throughout his lifetime was an advocate for democracy and a proponent of civil rights. He fought against Spain in the war of independence and served in the ranks of José María Morelos and Vicente Guerrero. He was a member of the Congress which drafted the Constitution of 1824 and a staunch supporter of President Vicente Guerrero when he abolished slavery in Mexico (Hutchinson 1969:154). Though Figueroa was an advocate of the Indians, many colonists in California disliked his liberal Indian policies.
14. Lisbeth Haas posits that territorial officials blocked the assignment of land grants to immigrants. In 1834 they composed the Manifiesto de la República Mexicana, in which they asserted the land rights of the Indians and colonists (Haas 1995:36). Though Haas is correct in the interpretation of this document, land grant records indicate that many Anglo Americans were issued grants throughout California (Cowan 1977).
15. In northern California Christian ranchería Indians from Capay, Casalamcujomí, and Cotate began the land patent process, but did not complete it (Robinson 1948:71).
17. This information was obtained by comparing the names of the grantees in Cowan’s (1977:115–123) land registry with Bancroft’s (1964) abstracts of California’s pioneers.
18. The Carrillo, Pico, and Alvarado families intermarried during the Mexican period (see Bancroft 1964; Garrison 1935).
19. Vallejo’s and Carrillo’s grants were confirmed within a few months after Alvarado left office (Cowan 1977:126–133).
20. Rafael Sánchez received a patent a few months after Micheltorena left office (Cowan 1977:141).
21. From 1832 to 1833 José Maria Echeandía, Agustín Zamorano, and Pío Pico claimed that they were governors of California (Rush 1965:116). Pío Pico obtained federal recognition as interim governor twenty days before the federal government appointed José Figueroa as the new governor.
22. This oral history was collected by Hubert H. Bancroft from Pío Pico (Bancroft 1964:I-Q 778, 779).
23. Santiago’s non-afromestizo sons Don Patricio, Don Javier, and Don Miguel Pico obtained 100,000 acres in southern California, on the ranch they called San José de Gracia de Simi, and another son, Don Dolores, obtained 35,504 acres (8 square leagues) in Monterey district, in which he established Bolsa de San Cayetano (Garrison 1935:30–31).
1. The ideas contained in the sections on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and citizenship are based upon two of my articles, “Chicano Indianism: A Historical Account of Racial Repression in the United States” (1993) and “The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Racialization of the Mexican Population” (1999).
2. The California legislature passed the Fugitive Slave Law in 1852, prohibiting runaway slaves from settling in the state (Heizer and Almquist 1977:122–124).
3. For an extended discussion on citizenship after the Mexican American War, see my article “Chicano Indianism: A Historical Account of Racial Repression in the United States” (1993). Although the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868 with the intention of legislating a uniform citizenship law and allowing many people of color to become citizens, many states ignored this ruling.
4. The Naturalization Act of 1790, which only allowed “free white immigrants” to apply for naturalization, was finally nullified in 1940 (Hull 1985; Konvitz 1946). For a detailed discussion on the history of naturalization and Mexicans, see Menchaca 1993.
5. Under the Plan de Iguala all free people residing in Mexico in 1821 were declared citizens (Meyer and Sherman 1995). Foreigners who immigrated to Mexico after that date needed to be naturalized before becoming citizens (Weber 1982).
6. David Williams (1998) argues that William Goyen obtained property by a special grant of the Texas legislature. The name of the tract of land is not specified. Allegedly he was rewarded for his services as an Indian agent. I was unable to confirm this information based on Texas General Land Office records. The New Handbook of Texas History (1996) states that “Goyen’s Hill” was purchased.
7. Mr. Gaylan Greaser, the archivist of the Spanish and Mexican land grant records in the Texas General Land Office, concurs that there are no available records indicating that Christian Indians had their grants confirmed under the Republic of Texas or U.S. occupation.
8. After the U.S.-Mexico boundary was set, following the Mexican American War, the civic buildings of Senecú lay on the Mexican side and a large part of the farm lands on the U.S. side. Those Senecú Indians living on the U.S. side lost their ranch lands during American occupation (see Bowden 1971; Minter 1993). The Texas legislature treated the confiscated property as part of the grant land given to the Ysleta Indians.
9. Garza (1980) is a photocopy of the original study conducted by the Mexican government in 1852.
10. In comparing the list compiled by the General Commission for U.S.-Mexico Relations with the names of the land grantees of Mission Espada I did not find the names of the mission Indian families included in the list of grantees who complained to the Mexican government (Texas General Land Office, archives, File 121:45, “Espada Mission Land Records”).
11. After Mexican independence, the towns founded by genizaros were classified as Mexican towns and villas (see Chapter 7). See Brayer (1949:149, 205, 210, 253) and Leonard (1943:27) for a discussion of the land confirmation process experienced by the settlers of Abiquiú, Ojo Caliente, Socorro, Anton Chico, and San Miguel del Vado.
12. On 8 February 1887 the General Allotment Act was passed, allowing Indian communities to divide reservation land among tribal members and give each family the authority to sell their parcels (Dale 1951:120). Furthermore, the act authorized the president of the United States to purchase any tract and distribute it among homesteaders. The Pueblo Indians resisted the allotment process and retained their land under the control of their tribal governments.
13. Former circuit court judge of appeals William W. Morrow offers a different estimate of the amount of land involved in the claims, arguing that approximately 30 million acres were reviewed and 20 million rejected (Morrow 1923:23). He excludes from his estimate the acreage that was rejected on the basis that the claims were fraudulent. Ebright’s claim includes the acreage identified to be fraudulent.
14. Edward Soza (1994a, 1998) found in a review of the applications submitted under the Homestead Act of 1862 and other state homestead acts that the majority of Mexican applicants were unsuccessful. The reasons given by the land commission included individuals’ not being citizens, fraudulent conduct, and people claiming to be Mexican who were actually Indian.
15. After Indians were denied citizenship and protection under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexican delegates attempted to obtain some monetary compensation for their anticipated property losses in 1849, during California’s first constitutional convention (see Ross Browne 1850:70). In particular, the delegate for Santa Bárbara, Mr. P. Noriega de la Guerra, argued that if Christian Indians were going to be taxed like other California residents they should receive some political privileges and at minimum be paid for the confiscation of their property. He added that it was cruel to rescind the political rights Christian Indians had enjoyed for decades and to treat them as if they were uncivilized. Though the majority of the delegates concurred that Christian Indians should not be treated as nomadic Indians and removed to reservations, they rejected any plan to compensate them. In 1849 California’s constitution was endorsed by forty-eight delegates, eight of whom were Mexican (Ross Browne 1850:478–479).
16. In 1876 Simone, an Indian, purchased a land grant in San Gabriel and had the grant validated by the California Land Commission (Ayers 1886:13; Engstrand 1991). He was allowed to keep his land because under federal law Indians could own property if it had been purchased. Property was confiscated when the Spanish or Mexican government had granted the land. This is the only case of a Christian Indian purchasing a land grant and subsequently having it confirmed. The original land grant owner was a Mexican and had a perfect land title.
17. Under Worcester v. Georgia (1832, cited in Minter 1993:3) the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the opinion that the federal government had the obligation to protect Indian territory against the passage of state laws which left Indians homeless.
18. Reservations established between 1851 to 1853 were designed to relocate nomadic Indians who had ceased warring against the state (Hurtado 1988:136–147). Mainly the Indians from Tejón Pass and the San Joaquín Valley were placed on reservation lands.
19. When the U.S. Congress passed the California Land Act of 1851, it placed full authority in a land commission and instructed the district courts to adjudicate land claim appeals. The president appointed a commission of three members to hear testimony and to study land documents. The commission could either confirm or reject the claims, and either side could appeal to the district courts (Engstrand 1991:43, 44).
20. Robinson and Engstrand offer slightly different estimates. Robinson (1948: 106) proposes that 604 grants were confirmed, 190 rejected, and 19 withdrawn. Engstrand (1991:44) states that 603 claims were confirmed, 190 rejected, and 20 withdrawn.
21. The file Santa Paula Water Works et al. v. Julio Peralta, 1893–1898 is located in the Ventura County Court House. It contains documents pertaining to Peralta’s district and state court cases.
22. Mexican elites experienced downward mobility during the 1870s, but most did not lose their homes. For example, though General Vallejo lost his land grants, he was able to send his son to medical school, and one of his daughters married into a wealthy Anglo-American family (Bancroft 1964:R-Z 759).
23. In 1870, a few years after the transatlantic railroad connecting the East and West coasts was completed, thousands of railroad workers and their families settled in California and sought employment. Among this population were over 49,277 Chinese railroad workers, who turned to the ranches and farms in search of work (U.S. Census 1872:20; Takaki 1990).
24. Blacks for unknown reasons did not become part of the preferred farm labor force (Galarza 1964). Instead they were hired for the lowest-paying occupations in the factories and for unskilled jobs, including service and domestic work.
1. Sections of this chapter are based upon my article “Chicano Indianism: A Historical Account of Racial Repression in the United States” (1993).
2. United States v. Wong Kim Ark was argued in March 1897; the final decision was rendered in March 1898.
3. By 1900 the size of the Mexican immigrant population had increased to 103,445 and by 1920 to 486,418 (U.S. Census 1902:61, 1922:299).
4. Bakke filed his suit against the University of California Medical School at Davis in 1974 (Takaki 1994:24).