De la Co’s Story

De la Co Ayance, like Miguel Ahuata, began his story with a quarrel between the municipio president and the priest. Both narrators described the rain gods supporting the priest by seeking out and destroying the president’s tonal, which de la Co described as an achane appearing as a lizard. De la Co Ayance described the rain gods killing the lizard and thus killing the president himself in human form. However, de la Co Ayance cast his story a little differently by setting the action in the neighboring Totonac community of Hueytlalpan, which is north of Huitzilan, to dissimulate his harsher criticisms of the president and autocratic rule in his own community. Other Nahuas who told this story added the detail that the Hueytlalpan president was not only an autocrat but also took orders from Spain. Below are the English and Nahua versions of his story followed by commentary on how de la Co Ayance’s story incorporates what was taking place in Huitzilan around the time of his narration.

1. There was a man, he used to be the president of Hueytlalpan, a village around here.
2. And he was very excessive.
3. He did crazy things to the town.
4. He would lock people up for nothing.
5. He was excessive.
6. And he would even lock up the priest.
7. Even if the priest had not done anything.
8. The priest would hold Mass before notifying the president.
9. So then the president would lock him up.
10. He would put him in jail.
11. And that was because the president was prone to anger.
12. For a long time the president behaved this way because he was prone to anger.
13. Then the priest said, “And now what shall we do with this president?
14. He locks us up a lot.
15. He makes us do a lot of work.
16. He treats us like children.
17. Now let us look for twelve rain gods, and I am going to say Mass,” said the priest.
18. “I am going to say Mass, and we are going to look for those twelve rain gods so that they will look for the president.”
19. So that is what the rain gods did.
20. And they looked for the president.
21. They looked for him in the canyons.
22. They looked for him in the water.
23. The looked for him in the wind.
24. Where did he go?
25. Where would they find him?
26. He is nowhere.
27. No one can find him.
28. Those rain gods went far away, even to the sea.
29. They went everywhere.
30. They did not find him.
31. So they went again.
32. They looked for him again.
33. Again they went to the sea.
34. He was nowhere.
35. And again, one day, they went to the sea.
36. They did not find him.
37. They returned.
38. They were on their way back.
39. And they came across a hummingbird sitting in the road.
40. There the hummingbird was sitting.
41. It asked, “Where are you going?”
42. “Well we,” they said, “are going nowhere.
43. We are just going for a walk.”
44. “That is not true.
45. I know what you are looking for.”
46. “We are not looking for anything,” they said to the hummingbird.
47. “We are just going for a walk.
48. And do you really know what we are looking for?”
49. “I sure do.
50. I know.
51. I know what you are looking for.
52. You are looking for that man.
53. And you have not found him.”
54. “Do you know where he is?” the rain gods asked.
55. The hummingbird replied, “I know.
56. I know where he is.”
57. “Good, if you know where he is, then tell us.”
58. “Well, if you want, let us go find him.
59. Let us go see him.
60. I shall show you where he is.”
61. So then they turned around, and the hummingbird took them.
62. They arrived again at the sea.
63. The hummingbird said, “He sits over there.
64. He is in the middle of the sea.
65. He comes up onto a sand island.
66. A place where there is no water.
67. And he comes out when the sun comes out.
68. The sun comes out, and then he appears over there.
69. He warms himself a little when there is sun.
70. He does it for just one hour.
71. He does it for just one hour and yes, again he goes away.”
72. The hummingbird added, “Well, that is where he is.
73. But right now, he is gone.
74. It has passed the hour.
75. He has already come and gone.
76. You come tomorrow.
77. You come tomorrow and you will be sure to find him.
78. He comes for the sun.”
79. The rain gods thought, “Well, good.
80. Let us go,” they said, “and we shall come tomorrow.”
81. They went, they went home.
82. They did not make a sound.
83. They went back quietly and saw he was really there.
84. He was a big lizard.
85. He was huge.
86. They thought, “Well, there he is.
87. Now let us go into his body.
88. Let us go in through his mouth.
89. They made claps of thunder.
90. That is how it was.
91. One after the other, one after the other, and one after the other went in.
92. They all went in through his mouth.
93. Eleven in all went in.
94. Eleven went in.
95. And they could not break that animal into pieces.
96. They could not split him open.
97. And they realized that only one of them was left.
98. “What do I do now, and I am the only one left?
99. And now it is my turn for me to go in through his mouth, and then he will not break apart and we shall be stuck inside.
100. Now I am going to enter through his anus.”
101. So then he went in through his anus.
102. He went in through his anus.
103. He went in.
104. He made a clap of thunder inside of his body and split him open.
105. With the clap of thunder all of his eleven companions were thrown out of his body.
106. Yes.
107. They were all inside.
108. He thought, “Well, now what shall I do?
109. Right now I am going to revive my companions.”
110. He began blowing into their ears.
111. He blew into the ears of all of them.
112. So he blew into the ears of all of them.
113. Until he revived all of them.
114. He revived them.
115. “Now yes,” they said.
116. “Let us go.
117. We did what we did because he made us sad.”
118. Yes.
119. They arrived back home.
120. Well, that president was sleeping in his house until he burned.
121. He was burned in his bed.
122. The force with which they struck him there also reached him where he was burned.
123. His body and animal companion were both burned.
124. So then they began to see he was already dead.
125. They were happy.
126. The priest was ready for them to hold a dance [fiesta].
127. They held a fiesta.
128. They got drunk.
129. They danced.
130. They were happy because the president had died.
131. And that is the end of the story.

1. Ce tacat, catca persidente de nican Hueytlalpan.
2. Huan cimi loco catca.
3. Cimi tehza quichihuiliaya in pueblo.
4. Tehza quintzacuaya.
5. Loco.
6. Huan ihcon cura no quitzacuaya.
7. Como yehha ahmo yeh canah cura quichihuaz tehza.
8. Quichihuaz misa achto huan ahmo yehha quinahuatia nen presidente.
9. Entonces quitzacua.
10. Calaquia bote.
11. Huan ihcon ta cualanti.
12. Huehcahuac yeh ihcon quichihua que ta cualanti ihcon.
13. Tonse quihtoa cura, “Huan axcan toni ticchihuilizqueh ne presidente?
14. Cimi techtzacua.
15. Miac chihualiz ma ticchihuacan.
16. Techpiya quemeh tipilhuan.
17. Axcan ma tictemocah mahtactionomeh quiyauhteomeh huan nehha nicchihuati misa,” telia in cura.
18. “Nehha nicchihuati misa huan tiquintemotih nohon mahtactionomeh quiyauhteomeh para tictemotih can yetoz.”
19. Tonse ihcon quichiuqueh.
20. Huan quitemoah.
21. Quitemoah tech cuauhyoh.
22. Quitemoah tech in at.
23. Quitemoah tech in ehecat.
24. Can yahqui?
25. Can quiahcizqueh ihcon?
26. Ahmo canah cachi.
27. Ahmo quiahci.
28. Non quiyauhteomeh yahqueh ya hasta huehca yahqueh ya, hasta campa mar.
29. Nemitoh nochi.
30. Pos ahmo quiahcih.
31. Ihcon ceppa yohueh.
32. Ceppa quitemotih.
33. Ceppa yohueh tech in mar.
34. Nochi nenqueh.2
35. Huan ceppa ce tonal, yahqueh tech in ne mar.
36. Ahmo quiahci ihcon.
37. Moquepqueh ya.
38. Huan que huitzeh ya.
39. Huan quiahciqui ce huitziqui tocotzyetoc itech ohti.
40. Ompa tocotzyetoc ce huitziqui.
41. Quilia, “Can nanyahcah?”
42. “Pos tehhan,” quilia ne, “ahmo canah.
43. Tehhan zayoh ihcon tipaxalohuah.”
44. “Ahmo melauh.
45. Nehha nicmati ca toni nanquitemoah.”
46. “Ahmo tei tictemoah,” quilia ne.
47. “Tehhan ihcon tipaxalohuah.
48. Huan xe ticmati toni tictemoah?”
49. “Quenamo.
50. Neh nicmatoc.
51. Nicmatoc toni quitemoah.
52. Nanquitemoah nohon ne tacat.
53. Huan ahmo nanquiahcih.”
54. “Xe ticmatoc,” quilia, “ca yetoc?”
55. Quilia, “Neh nicmatoc.
56. Neh nicmatoc ca yetoc.”
57. “Bueno, como ticmatoc ca yetoc, xitechnextili.”
58. “Pos, como nanquinequih, tyohueh.
59. Tyohueh tiquittatih.
60. Tinamechnextiliti [Ninamechnextiliti] campa yetoc.”
61. Tonse moquepqueh huan ceppa quincehuiac nohon huitziqui.
62. Ahciqueh campa occeppa in mar.
63. Quilia, “Ompa ya ne motalia.
64. Yetoc tahtaco de mar.
65. Panhuetztoc nochi atexal3.
66. Ihcon ahmo tei in at.
67. Huan ompa huitza cuando quizaqui tonal.
68. Quizaqui tonal huan ompa huitza ya.
69. Ompa mototonia tepitzin ca nen tonal.
70. Zayoh ce hora quichihua.
71. Zayoh ce hora quichihua huan quemah, occeppa yohui.”
72. Quilia, “Pos ompa ya ne,” quilia.
73. “Pero yequintzin yahqui ya.
74. Yequintzin panoc ya in hora.
75. Huallaca ya huan yahqui ya.
76. Hasta moztah nanhuitzeh.
77. Moztah nanhuitzeh huan seguramente nanquiahciquihueh ya.
78. Quiahciquih tonal.”
79. Quitmolia, “Pos bueno.
80. Tyohueh ya,” quilia, “huan moztah tihuitzeh.”
81. Yahqueh, ihcon yohueh.
82. Ahmo caquizti.4
83. Yohueh ihcon ic[h]taca cuando quittah melauh ompa yetoc ya.
84. Ce huei alagarto.
85. Telcenca huei.
86. Quitmolia, “Pos ne yetoc ya.
87. Axcan nican ticalaquizqueh.
88. Tyohueh iteno ticalaquitih.”
89. Nochi ceppa za tatatzinic.
90. Ihcoza.
91. Ce huan ce, ce huan ce, huan ce yohui.
92. Nochi iteno calaqueh.
93. Hasta mahtactionce yahquih.
94. Mahtactionce yahquih.
95. Huan ahmo tapanih5 nen ocuilin.
96. Ahmo quixtapanah.6
97. Pos quitmolia ayoc7 ce mocauh.
98. “Toni nicchihua huan zayoh nocelti?
99. Huan den hora ceppa iteno nicalaquiti, entonces ahmo tapanaz huan ompa timocahuah.
100. Axcan neh nicalaquiti in cuitco.”8
101. Tonce yahqui.
102. Nican cuitco quicalaquito.
103. Calaquito.
104. Ompa tatatzinic ihctic ya pero ceppa za ixtapanac.
105. Ompa nochi icuin motamotqueh9 nicompañeros de mahtactionce.
106. Quemah.
107. Ompa actoyah nochi.
108. Quitmolia, “Pos axcan toni nicchihua?
109. Axcan yequintzin niyoliti.”
110. Pehuac nochi quinpitza ihcon tech ni nacaz.
111. Nochi quinpitza.
112. Nochi ihcon quinpitza.
113. Hasta quinyoliti nochi.
114. Quinyoliti.
115. “Axcan quemah,” quilia.
116. “Tyohueh ya.
117. Ticchiuqueh ya den techyolcoctoya.”10
118. Quemah.
119. Ompa ehoqueh.
120. Pos ne presidente campa cochtoya ichan, hasta no tatac campa ne yetoya.
121. No tatac tech nicama.
122. Ehoc in fuerza de nepa quimacaqueh nican no ehoc tech nicama.
123. No tatac.
124. Tonse peuqueh ne quittacah miquic ya.
125. Pos cuelittah ya.
126. Pos ya in cura para quichiuqueh ce baile.
127. Quichiuqueh ilhuit.
128. Tahuanah.
129. Mihtotiqueh.
130. Cuelittah ya porque miquic ya in presidente.
131. Huan tamic in cuento.11

Interpretation

De la Co Ayance’s story captures how his community had changed from the time, three years earlier, when Miguel Ahuata told his story of “The President and Priest.” In 1978, the UCI rebellion was in its early stage. One way de la Co expressed the presence of the UCI was in the numerology that is important to Nahuas who told stories of this type. De la Co reduced the number of rain gods it took to kill the president’s animal companion spirit from two groups of twelve plus one in Miguel Ahuata’s story to one group of eleven plus one. The twelfth, rather than the twenty-fifth rain god killed the lizard. The lizard, moreover, has only one mouth, expressing how the Mestizos posed a diminished threat to the Nahuas now that those in the UCI were challenging their power. To devour (-cua) is a common Nahua expression for subjugating another person or group.

At about this time, Adolfo Aco, the last Mestizo from Huitzilan to serve as municipio president, abandoned his office and ordered a Nahua councilman to take his place. He knew what he was doing because shortly thereafter Nahuas in the UCI shot and killed the new president, ostensibly for working for the elite families in Huitzilan. The UCI were posing a serious threat to the position of those families in word as well as deed. They were broadcasting speeches threatening death to the ricos and repeating the slogan “land is for those who work it,” attributed to Emiliano Zapata. The UCI carried out torchlit marches through the middle of the town, painting the whitewashed houses of wealthier Mestizo families with slogans like “Death to the rich” and “Long live the UCI.”

Each narrator described the behavior of the story’s characters in particular ways in accord with what had been taking place in Huitzilan just prior to the time of narration. Miguel Ahuata had criticized the president for behaving with negative reciprocity, alluding to a long history of Mestizos coming into Huitzilan and coveting and taking the Nahuas’ land, making it difficult for them to produce the corn they needed.

By contrast, de la Co Ayance criticized the president for being autocratic, and he attributed his behavior to a bad personality. He described the president as crazy (line 2) because he locked people up for nothing (line 4), such as when he jailed the priest for holding Mass before notifying the president (lines 6, 8–9). He described the president as prone to anger (line 11) and making people do a lot of work (faena, line 15). Perhaps most important, de la Co Ayance said that the president “has treated us like children” (line 16).

De la Co Ayance could have had a number of presidents in mind. His description of the president particularly fits some Nahuas’ accounts of their experience with a Mestizo I shall call Porfirio, who was serving as municipio president in 1973 and 1974, just before the formation of the UCI. Porfirio was related by kinship to Ponciano Bonilla. I do not know if de la Co Ayance had a run-in with Porfirio, but other Nahuas who lived in the same neighborhood did, and they described Porfirio as behaving like an autocratic president, as in de la Co Ayance’s story.

One example is the account that my compadre, “Juan,” shared with me about the problem he had with Porfirio in 1973. Juan’s son, whom I shall call “José,” had married “Maria,” who was about fifteen years old in 1973. At the time José began living with Maria around 1972, Porfirio sent Ramirez, a Nahua serving as councilman of education (regidor de educación), to inform José that María had not completed her primary school education and should return to school. Juan pointed out that she had not been going to school for a year prior to living with José because she was caring for her mother and grandfather. Her father had died.

Juan said that if all is well, one should go to school, but if not, one is compelled to remain home. Porfirio accused José of taking advantage of María because she had no father. Porfirio told Juan that José had committed a great sin and had to pay a 350-peso fine in cash or work it off in the municipio palace. At that time, a Nahua man earned about twenty pesos for one day’s work. Juan objected because José would lose too many days, leaving his family with nothing to eat. Juan told Porfirio that José and María were ce ceco, meaning they lived in a separate domestic group and ate from their own granary and purse rather than from those of his parents. Juan told Porfirio he wanted to speak to José about the matter. José went to see Porfirio, whom he found to be a very intimidating figure. Porfirio threatened to kick him, and so Juan and José made the long and arduous journey by foot to Tetela de Ocampo, the former district capital, to register their complaint. According to Juan, the Tetela official heard them and said that if Ramirez wanted to play around with fines or multas, he would show him what a multa really was. He gave Juan a letter addressed to Manuel Bonilla, the Agente de Ministerio Público, who is the local official handing serious offenses, demanding that Ramirez come to Tetela. Juan delivered the letter, and Ramirez said he could not make the journey because of illness. He resigned shortly thereafter, and there the matter died.12

There are many aspects to this complicated case. One is that Nahuas at that time frequently married off their daughters right after their first menstruation, which often occurred during their primary school years. Another is that several Mestizos as well as Nahuas I knew well considered Porfirio to be a corrupt municipio president who stole from the treasury. He was not the only one to do so, but he was one of the worst. A close relative of Porfirio declared that he grabbed the Escorial ejido for himself when serving on the ejido committee. When Juan handed him the letter from the officials in Tetela, Ramirez took the blame for Porfirio’s behavior, and it is no coincidence that Ramirez was a Nahua.

Juan’s story is an example of the vulnerability of the Nahuas to an autocratic municipio president. It also reveals the obstacles a Nahua faces when he wishes to make an accusation against a Mestizo by registering a complaint with the Agente de Ministerio Público (prosecutor) in Huitzilan. A Nahua could file an accusation with the municipio authorities against another Nahua but not against a Mestizo. Manuel Bonilla, the Agente de Ministerio Público at the time, and Porfirio were both Mestizos related to Juana Gutierrez. Had Manuel confronted Porfirio over his treatment of José, he might have started another feud among Juana’s descendants, who were already divided over who owned the Talcuaco and Taltempan pastures. Porfirio was usually armed, had a temper, and pulled a gun on his own nephew after a bout of heavy drinking in a local cantina. To defend themselves, Juan and his son had to walk forty-seven kilometers from Huitzilan to Tetela de Ocampo, a journey that took about thirteen hours13 in 1973. There was no road from Huitzilan to Tetela that was passable by car, truck, or bus at that time.

Indignities and Humiliations

Stories like this one of suffering indignities and humiliations under the rule of autocrats like Porfirio had become collective memories (Halbwachs 1992) in Nahua culture in Huitzilan during the first stage of fieldwork between 1968 and 1975. What took place in Huitzilan is a special case of a much broader trend among those who are members of the subordinate group in systems of domination. Scott (1990: 7) wrote: “The practices of domination and exploitation typically generate the insults and slights to human dignity that in turn foster a hidden transcript of indignation.” Scott draws on (1990: 109) “reactant theory,” which “begins with the premise that there is a human desire for freedom and autonomy that, when threatened by the use of force, leads to a reaction of opposition.” He notes (1990: 111–112) that “Resistance, then, originates not simply from material appropriation but from the pattern of personal humiliations that characterize that exploitation.” Extrapolating from Scott’s (1990: 119) theory, humiliations, particularly those that violate the Nahuas’ values of conduct, drove Miguel Ahuata and de la Co Ayance to nurse their fantasies of revenge in stories about the rain gods’ rebellion.

Some of the most high-minded declarations of morality emerged in the religious life of Huitzilan, beginning with the morality play that the San Miguel dancers performed on saint’s day celebrations. Mestizos as well as the Nahuas interpreted that play as the triumph of good over evil, although members of the two groups interpreted what is good and what is evil differently. The members of both groups also expressed their expectations for social conduct in ceremonies of ritual kinship or compadrazgo (Chapter 5), a relationship of respect that sometimes connects families across ethnic lines in Huitzilan.

Nahuas and Mestizos have the opportunity to express their common values of love and respect when they contract compadrazgo of marriage and exchange flower necklaces (xochicozcat), break the wedding fast, and perform the dance of four (nanahuin) with the flower tree adornment (xochicuahuit). The compadrazgo rituals are part of what Scott (1990: 2) calls the “public transcript as a shorthand way of describing the open interaction between subordinates and those who dominate.” During the first period of fieldwork, Nahuas chose Mestizo couples to be their compadres of marriage and the baptism of their children in approximate proportion to the relative number of couples in each ethnic group in Huitzilan’s population. In 1973, Nacho and I carried out a survey of Nahuas’ compadrazgo choices, and we found that Nahuas chose Mestizo couples 10.7 percent of the time when Mestizos couples made up 7.6 percent of the total number of couples in the community.

Joint participation in compadrazgo rituals did not necessarily mean, however, that Nahuas and Mestizos placed the same importance on the reciprocal exchange of flower necklaces, the breaking of the wedding fast, and the dance of four. Nahuas appear to place more hopes on compadrazgo because they have more riding on improved interethnic relations than do the Mestizos. Miguel Ahuata’s story in the preceding chapter and de la Co Ayance’s story in this one are thinly veiled expressions of indignities that they and other Nahuas experienced in their interaction with the Mestizos, who did not live up to the behavioral expectations Nahuas expressed in the compadrazgo rituals.

Religious and Secular Authority

In de la Co Ayance’s story, as in the one by Miguel Ahuata in the previous chapter, the rain gods rid a community of bad-acting municipio presidents who mistreat priests by starving them or jailing them for not asking the president for permission to give a Mass. As mentioned earlier, the rain gods’ support of religious authority is part of the Nahuas’ strategy of accommodation with the Church in their struggle against non-Nahuas who have moved into their communities. However, there is more involved in the rain gods’ support of religious authority and rebelling against secular authority in the person of the municipio president.

Nacho, speaking on behalf of his brothers, explained that the Hueytlalpan president behaved as an autocrat because he was taking orders from Spain. This statement accords with a long history of Nahuas in Huitzilan living under the rule of outsiders since at least the time of Juan Francisco Lucas, Juan N. Mendez, Isidro Grimaldo, and, later, Gabriel Barrios. They governed Huitzilan through Antonio Aco, who came from Tetela, and Ponciano Bonilla, who was born in Huitzilan and the grandson of Juana Guitierrez, the first non-Nahua settler who came from San Antonio Rayon, near Cuetzalan.

Nacho interpreted the story of “The President of Hueytlalpan” as expressing outside rule in the following way:

“They say that every day the [Hueytlalpan] president picked up many orders from Spain. They say the [orders] arrived every day in the wind. Every day the sun would rise, and he would pick up those orders from Spain.” (“Quihtoa moztah nohon presidente, quihtoa moztah quemeh axcan, huan para cuantzin, quicuiti miac tanahuatil de España. Quihtoa quit moztah ehcotoc moztah. Moztah taneci huan quicuiti non tanahuatil de España.”)14

Nacho explained that taking orders from Spain made the president feel and act like a big shot.

“He did not get along with people. He did not work well with others as president. He was known to be a big shot. That is what it was. . . . The people of the town would go to sleep, and in the morning the president would have his orders from Spain. Whatever those orders from Spain were, he acted like a big shot. That is why he felt so big.” (“Mal quihuicatoya. Ahmo tequitia cualli quemeh presidente. Quimachia telcenca huei. Ye ca non . . . axcan cochitiuh para cuantzin quipiya tanahuitil15 de España. Uh hu. Según cualcui tanahuitil de España. Tel huei chihuac. Por eso machilia telcenca huei.”)16

Acting like a big shot really got under the skin of many Nahuas. To act big is to be self-assertive, which runs counter to the Nahua values of cooperation. Many Mestizos displayed their feeling of superiority by calling themselves “people of reason,” and they guarded their class privileges relative to the Nahuas. One of the most obvious was the Mestizos’ double standard, according to which a Mestizo man could have sex with a Nahua woman but a Nahua man could not have sex with a Mestizo woman. Nahuas criticized anyone, including and especially other Nahuas, who tries to dominate them. Referring to the Nahuas in the UCI who had put him on a hit list, Nacho explained that anyone who tries to dominate others by force can expect sooner or later to fall from their lofty position. In 2004, he brought up the end of the UCI as an example:

“They felt [big] because they had guns. They were big shots. They did what they wanted but the day came when [their enemies] also shot them. Their [enemies] who shot them were far more numerous.” (“Momachiliaya porque quipiyah tepoz. Tel hueihuei. Quichihuah ta yehhan quinequih pero ehco tonal, quinmacah no. Quinmacah mas canachi miaqueh.”)17

Nacho was referring to the Antorcha Campesina that drove the UCI out of Huitzilan during the late fall of 1983 and established themselves in the municipio government in March 1984.

The next chapter will present another version of the rain gods’ rebellion that involved Petra, the Nahua woman met earlier who had a quiyauhteotonalle and was a rain god’s human companion. She organized the rain gods to remove the threat of too much water that appeared in the Totonac community of Ixtepec. In this story, the threat of being inundated by too much water is equated with too many Mestizos settling in the indigenous communities of the Sierra Norte.