Chapter 10
“The Land Transaction”
I heard many stories of Mestizos who tricked Nahuas out of their land, and one became a widespread and enduring collective memory. The story I shall call “The Land Transaction” recounts how several Nahuas joined the UCI to recover the land they considered stolen from their grandfather. Mestizos as well as Nahuas circulated versions of the story during all three periods of fieldwork, starting in 1968 and ending in 2012.
“The Land Transaction” provides a second example of the role that local Nahua culture played in justifying the UCI rebellion and in remembering it long after it came to an end. Below is a version I recorded in 2012 from a narrator who is related by kinship to the Nahua who lost his land to a wealthy Mestizo.
“Well, there was a little old man called C. He was old then. He really liked to drink. He wore what we used to call a pintocoton that was split open on the side. It was open here [narrator points to his sides]. It was not closed. It was closed in front and back like a serape. That was what he wore. But that little old man really liked to drink. He hung around where a rich man had his store. He liked it there a lot because the rich man gave him food. He went home. He told his wife, ‘That rich man really loves me because he gives me food.’ He was very content. Then the day came when he saw how much of a tab he had run up, and the rich man told him, ‘Now you have to give me title to your land because you ran up a big bill.’ At that moment he grabbed the old man’s land.”
(“Bueno huan non tacatzin monotza C. Ce huehueht catca. Melauh ca tahuanaya. Nitilman catca ne tiquiliaya pintocoton ma tapacti. Nican ce coton tapacti. Ahmo tzactoc. Yehhaza nican tzactoc huan tacuitapan quemeh non serape. Quitaquemia. Pero melauh ca tahuana ce huehuentzin. Mocahuaya campa nican Rico campa tanamacaya. Melauh cuellitaya por ompa quitamacaya. Te yaya ichan. Quihta, ‘Melauh nechtazohta nen Rico porque ompa nechtamaca.’ Entonces mohuellitaya. Pero cuando taquittaya que miactzin nicuenta, entonces quilia, ‘Pos axcan, tinechmaca ya moamat porque huei tac tiyetoc ya.’ Es que cuiliqui in tal.”)1
The narrator explained that the old man’s grandchildren joined the UCI to get the land back:
“Well, there were the grandchildren, who as children or even adolescents could not do anything. But then the UCI came, and the grandchildren, who were fully grown by then, took heart and thought they would try to snatch back the land. . . . They joined the rebellion. They went into the UCI for the purpose of recovering that land. But the UCI did not prevail.” (“Bueno te ixhuiuhuan, de pilhuan ahmo, naquin ichpochhuan ahmo quichiuhqueh. Pero de hualla in UCI huan te ixhuiuhuan pues quemeh tacah ipa huan moyolchicahuac, quitmolia quicuilitih non tal. . . . Tehuan mocalaquiqueh. Tehuan mocalaquiqueh UCIs para quicuizquia non tal. Pero ahmo taxicoqueh.”)2
The Achane
The Nahuas were in the process of converting the story of “The Land Transaction” into a myth that conferred moral importance to this event by telling how the water-dwelling animals and the rain gods punished the Mestizo who had tricked the grandfather. The narrator explained that sometime after the grandfather died,3 someone noticed that water began to seep out of the ground on Mt. Tachcuapan above the disputed plot of land. The narrator identified the achane, which brought the water, as a serpent. He described the achane’s coatonalle or companion spirit as the devil, who also changed into a man seeking to settle in Huitzilan.
“I remember that it was up on Mt. Tachcuapan, [where] that mountain is. Up there is a place just below the summit, where the mountain towers above nearly everything below it. So then water rose out of the ground below the summit where it is flat. It rose out of the ground. That is where that animal appeared. There was the animal. That is what they say. I do not know myself, but according to what they say that animal asked permission of the deceased rich man [for a place to make his house]. It was the rich man [who had snatched the land from C]. [The animal] asked permission. He said, ‘Let me put my house in this place that I like.’ But the rich man did not know where he asked him to put it. Afterwards the rich man realized what happened when he saw the water on the flat part of the land begin to rise out of the ground. There was a lot of water. A lot of water was all around the farmhouse. It was all around it. We had to ford along the edge where land met the water. We saw how the water was increasing, increasing. There was a lot of it. So then they started dig a trench so there would not be more water.”
Jim: “Was that animal a serpent?”
Narrator: “It was like a serpent. Only it looked like a man, the one who asked the rich man for permission. . . . But they say the animal grew to be big. Because they did not want [the achane] to make more water, this rich man put up walls so that what you are seeing is a lake. They put up retaining walls. So then it turned into a lake. But that was because they put up those walls. But they did not want to allow [the water to keep increasing] because cattle [drowned in the lake], and the water was blocking the road. So then they put in a ditch so that the water would flow away. But all at once it increased. All at once the water increased. Another rich man, E. C., he has his land around there. He saw a lot of [water] appearing again on the road so they say he cut a hole in [the retaining wall] so [the water] would not rise anymore.” (“Tiquelnamiqui nohon ne ahco ta lomo Tachcuapan ompa yetoc ce ta lomo. Ahco yetoc nipan tani, nipano tani huan casi nochi tani zayoh ahco yetoc non ta in lomo. Entonces in at panhuetzic in talpaniyan campa yetoc ce tamayan yetoc. Panhuetzic. Ompa nezic nohon yetoc ocuilin. Yetoc ocuilin. Quihtoqueh. Ahmo nicmati pero según quihtoqueh que non ocuilin quitahtanilito4 [quitatanilito] nin Rico catca. Rico. Quitatani permiso. Quilia, ‘Nechtacahuili,’ quit, ‘ma niquetza ce nochan nitahuelittaco5 [nitacuelittaco].’ Pero ahmo quimati can quitatani. Zatepan según momaca cuenta quitta in at tamayan pehua meyachihua in at. Huei catca in at. Huei tayahualtoya in at quemeh ne caltzintan. Icuin tayahualtoya. Tehhan ompa tipapanohuaya6 talteno. Tiquittah in at ihcon mozcaltia, mozcaltia. Huei mochihuac ya. Entonces pehuac quitenontia7 [quitenantia] para ma ahmo mochihua in at.”8
Jim: “Pero nohon ocuilin quemeh ce coat?”
Narrator: “Quemeh ce coat. Zayoh monextia quemeh tacat o según ihcuac quitatanic permiso. . . . Pero quihta mohueichihua non ocuilin. Quemeh ahmo quitecahualiqueh ma mochihua in at, nimotaliaya [nin motaliaya] non pantomeh9 tiquiztoc quemeh ce laguna. Motaliaya pantomeh. Entonces ne mochihuaya non laguna. Pero motaliaya non pantomeh. Pero ahmo quitahueliqueh [quitecahualiqueh] porque ompa miquih cuacuehmeh huan ompa ohti. Tons quitenotiqui para ma yohui in at. Pero ceppaza mochiuhca. Ceppa mochiuhca in at. Entonces yeh nen Rico, E. C. campa yeh iaxcan non tal. Ceppa quitta non ohti neztoc yec huei quit cohti10 huan at ma ahmo tehca.”)11
I pressed the narrator to explain how the achane had the power to make the water bubble out of the ground. He explained: “Well, it has force. It really has force. It is strong.” (“Pos quipiya chicahualiz non. Como melauh nohon quipiya chicahualiz. Chicahuac.”) I asked him to elaborate, and he said, “Well, they say that it probably was the devil. The devil turned into the animal. So that one would say that the [achane] was the devil. The devil is also strong.” (“Pos non ma quihtitocah yeh in mejor in ahmo cualli. Yeh in ahmo cualli porque mopata ocuilin. Para quihtoca cox yeh in ahmo cualli. In ahmo cualli no chicahuac.”)12
Then the narrator explained why the achane/devil brought water to the land the Mestizo obtained by trickery from the grandfather. He began by explaining that the grandfather went to his grave resenting what the rich man had done.
“Well, it probably was . . . because [the rich man] did not buy the land. He just took it from C. And right away that sick [old man] resented it. That is what the old man did. It was entirely for that reason.”
I asked: “Because the man died afterward?”
Narrator: “Yes, he died. From so much aguardiente. He died.”
I pressed further: “And did the water appear before or after he died?”
Narrator: “He died first. It appeared afterward.”
We had been discussing the fear of the dead, which seemed particularly acute after the end of the UCI rebellion. I suggested:
Jim: “Perhaps the water appeared because the man was angry. Even though he died and was in Mictan [Land of the Dead].”
Narrator: “Well, it is likely that he felt very badly. So much so that he probably [uttered] a curse or did something. I do not know what he did.”Jim: “But in your mind how do you see it?”
Narrator: “Many will say that when there is a man and he knows [someone] banishes him, well, he does not withdraw. He will not withdraw until he does what he wants to remove what that [other] man did to him. It is sort of like he would carry out an act of vengeance. His spirit did it, his memory did not die. . . . I do not know if he were a good man or not but since [the rich man] did that to him, snatching that land, well, he probably felt badly.”
(“Pues a lo mejor xa . . . porque ne tal ahmo quicoac. Quitecuili za. Huan ca nenque13 moyolcoco ne cocoxque. Ne tacat. Nochi non.”
Jim: “Porque zatepan miquic in tacat.”
Narrator: “Uh hu miquic. De tanto refino. Miquic.”
Jim: “Huan neci in at achto o zatepan miquic?”
Narrator: “Achto yeh miquic. Zatepan ya necic.”
——
Jim: “Xa neci in at porque cualani in tacat. Mazqui miquic huan yetoc mictan.”
Narrator: “Pues a lo mejor moyolcoco telcenca. Toni a lo mejor maldición o ta telchihualiz14. Ahmo nicmati que ye ihcon quichihuac.”
Jim: “Pero tech monemiliz queniuh tiquitta?”
Narrator: “Miac quihtozqueh cuando ce tacat huan quimatoc tocatehua, pues ahmo tapatahua.15 Ahmo tapatahuaz hasta que quinequi quiquixtiltiz ton quichihuili ne tacat. Cox yeh quemeh yazquia quihtoznequi venganza non quichihuac. Entonces quichihua non ne alma, ne telnamiquiliz por ahmo miqui. . . . Ahmo ticmati cox cual tacat catca o ahmo pero quemeh quichihuilizqui quicuilizque non tal, pues a lo mejor moyolcoco.”)16
The Rain Gods
Somewhere around the time I arrived in Huitzilan in the fall of 1968, there was another event that took place on the rich man’s land. A Nahua explained:
“A lightning bolt fell from the sky and killed many [of the rich man’s cattle]. I think about seven head of his cattle were killed. They were struck by lightning. Something ate some of them. I do not know if that something ate all of them. But it appears that they swallowed a lot of them. Many were killed. I do not know if they came to remove [the dead cattle] after picking them up from the earth. I do not know what they did with them. We do not know.” (“Huetzic in rayo ompa nehuan17 miquiqueh miaqueh. Nez chicomeh cuahcuemeh miquiqueh. Quinrayohuiqueh. Cequin quincuaqueh. Ahmo nicmati cox nochi quincuaqueh. Cox nez quinololoqueh pero yetz18 miaqueh. Miaqueh miquiqueh. Non ahmo nicmati cox ompa hualla ompa quizaco de nohon de quitehc[oh]uili in tal. Ahmo nicmati cox ye ca non ihcon mochiuh. Ahmo ticmatih.”)19
This narrator’s explanation for why the achane and the rain gods punished the man who seized the grandfather’s land are good examples of why Nahuas feel bound to treat others well and avoid incurring their wrath. The achane that brought the water to the rich man’s land was, according to the narrator, an agent that carried out the old man’s desire for revenge after he had died and had gone to the land of the dead. The old man carried his desire for revenge in his memory, which left his dead body and traveled to the land of the dead, whence it returned as an achane and flooded the land the rich man had snatched from him.
During the third period of fieldwork, I was struck by the palpable fear of the dead that Nahuas expressed around Todos Santos. They recounted many stories of the dead spirits returning to the land of the living and punishing with envy sickness or nexicolcocoliz their family members and anyone else for whom they harbored a grudge. Envy sickness is a broad category that includes many different chronic illnesses and even death. A dead person can harbor a grudge for many reasons, including an envious intentionality (tequiuh). Nahuas particularly tended to attribute grudges to envy in family relationships, and one recounted a story of a grandmother who had envied her daughter-in-law and returned from the land of the dead to get back at her by attempting to kill her own grandson with envy sickness. The effect of such reasoning is to compel Nahuas to avoid offending others lest they carry their grudge to the grave with them.
The rain gods who killed the rich man’s cattle operated differently; they handed out justice to the Mestizo who snatched land unjustly from the Nahua man C. In stories considered up to this point, the rain gods, often at the instigation of their human companions, organized rebellions to punish those who have acted badly by practicing negative reciprocity, acting as autocrats, and flooding a community. In this respect, the rain gods act as just gods who love the Nahuas. Juan Hernández had declared in his interview that he believed the rain gods love the Nahuas because they provide them with rain and the seed with which to live. The loving nature of the rain gods is a trait they share with the Virgin of Guadalupe, whom some Nahuas, such as Nacho’s brother, also credited with bringing rain to the Nahuas in Huitzilan and elsewhere.
From Discontent to Rebellion
Narrators of “The Kidnapped Wife,” “Malintzin,” and “The Land Transaction” played different roles in converting the Nahuas’ discontent into an organized rebellion. I suspect but cannot prove that “The Kidnapped Wife” appeared soon after the actual kidnapping of the Nahua wife that took place in late April 1977. Narrators, outraged by the abduction, converted the details into the myth of Malintzin. In that story, the plot is reduced to a virtuous woman who takes pity on a crying child only to be dragged into deep water, never to be seen again. The trimmed-down version spread widely in Huitzilan, reaching Ixtahuatalix in the south and Calyecapan in the north by early 1978. The events that took place in “The Kidnapped Wife” were a powerful motive for the aggrieved husband to join the contingent of Nahuas who invited the UCI leader to come to Huitzilan. The subsequent spread of the story of Malintzin helped inspire other Nahuas to join the UCI’s land invasion, until the number had reached about forty by the time I returned to Huitzilan in January 1978.
As far as I can determine, the story of “The Land Transaction,” but not “Malintzin,” continued to be part of the collective memory of the UC rebellion during the third period of fieldwork (2003–2012). “Malintzin” faded from oral tradition after the UCI successfully removed Coyot from the community and burned down his house. Meanwhile, the story of “The Land Transaction,” which circulated in Mestizo as well as Nahua oral tradition since the first period of fieldwork, provided the justification for other Nahuas to join them in the UCI rebellion. The story discredited the moral authority of Mestizos who seized land Nahuas once used to grow their food. As pointed out earlier, the alienation of Nahua land began long before the first Mestizo settler had appeared in Huitzilan. The focus on land has continued right up until the end of my fieldwork in 2012 because the predicament of the Nahuas with respect to land has remained the same. Moreover, Nahua corn farmers in Huitzilan, like their counterparts elsehwere in Mexico (Appendini, Garcia Barrios and de la Tejera 2003; Arellano Mares 2012), have had to compete with cheap, industrially produued corn imported from the United States under the 1994 NAFTA agreement. One result is that, following the UCI rebellion, more Nahuas have abandoned the idea of producing their own food and have found work in and particularly outside of Huitzilan. A good number of these have gone to the United States, where they are undocumented workers. Prior to the UCI rebellion, Nahua migration from Huitzilan to the United States was almost unheard-of.
From my perspective as an outside observer, the stories reveal that the UCI rebellion was an indigenous phenomenon in the sense that it was the Nahuas’ last desperate attempt to revitalize their corn-farming culture. That culture was based on the value of “working as one” to fill a common granary with enough food to last for an entire year. Usually Nahuas had to produce two crops of corn a year to reach this goal, one they planted around in mid-December and the other in mid-June. The corn-farming culture evolved over thousands of years during which Nahuas developed a high degree of symbiosis with the corn plant (Sandstrom 1991; Lara González 2019). The stories that Nahuas in Huitzilan told about rain gods and water-dwelling animals are contemporary expressions of the ancient fertility cult that was part of that culture. Johanna Broda (1971) traced the fertility cult to the earlier of two cultural strata of cultivators who lived in central and eastern Mexico long before the arrival of the Spaniards and before the Mexica had established their empire in Tenochtitlan, located in the center of what is now Mexico City. The myth of “Malintzin” and the stories of “The Kidnapped Wife” and “The Land Transaction,” which has acquired the properties of a myth, provided additional emotional force for the rebellion. In this respect the Nahuas of Huitzilan, who supported the UCI rebellion, resemble the Quechuas in Perú who participated in the Shining Path Insurgency to get back at a Mestizo who stole their resources and assaulted their women (La Serna (2012: 155).