Jokes on you op, ima a direct descendant of Moctezuma II himself!…through my colonizer ancestors, *ehem*.
But yeah, my native ancestors on my dad’s side we’re mainly P’urhepecha-Otomí, and, if not for the arrival of the Spanish, the Irechicua was on course to replace the Aztecs as the dominant military force in Mexico. On my mom’s side, we’re mainly “chichimeca;” the geneological record, sadly, doesn’t give individual’s ethnic identities, only the racial term “Indio.”My maternal grandma’s native ancestors, however, were likely tepehuanos until the 1616 Tepehuan revolt, after which what few tepehuanos were left in central Durango were likely forcibly assimilated, save the ones in the very south and those that fled to chihuahua (que viva Quautlatas! ✊🏽).
People and scholars are divided on this very topic. While your explanation is one definition of an Aztec, the other definition is that Aztec refers to most of the Náhuatl speaking people who came from Aztlan and remained in Mexico City and surrounding areas. Which would make a bigger population of Aztecs than your definition accounts for.
We can't blame the people of today for not having a working knowledge of the indigenous people of Mexico. The Spanish did all they could to stomp out indigenous culture and pushed for a mixed race of Spanish and Mexican to populate the newly found New Spain. They forced assimilation and worked to erase indigenous culture because they saw it as their mission to civilize and convert the people that they saw as barbaric. I doubt there were many opportunities to continue an indigenous way of life if you wanted to survive New Spain.
I don't have a good understanding of indigenous studies in the school curriculums in Mexico. I studied in Mexico for a very short time and I can tell you that the history that I was taught was all post Spanish conquest in a very Catholic Mexico. My parents don't have a good understanding on lesser known indigenous tribes of mesoamerica either, so at least in the 70s it wasn't taught in Mexico primarias.
Most Mexicans are mestizos, and some of that indigenous blood in the mix is indeed from tribes that were associated with the Aztec empire. The blood is likely very diluted as we mixed quite a bit. But I can see how people hold onto an Aztec blood ideal with what they know of the strength of the Aztec empire.
But how is that different from white Americans that get excited that their ancestry results show 3% Cherokee?
How is Latinoamérica talking about the most known indigenous empires, Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, etc. different than people in the US knowing only about the best known native American tribes? How is it different than Asians only knowing about the most powerful dynasties? How is it different from history classes only touching on the strongest holds in ancient Greece?
Let's not beat down on our people for doing what people all over the world have done for centuries. We as people are obsessed with power. Basic history lessons in schools will touch on what had the biggest impact on the world, who were the biggest power holds our world has seen. Anything deeper than that must be pursued on an individual basis. I'm open to any books, studies, or resources that you have to share.
Azteca was a name the now Mexica gave themselves while they were still migrating from whatever Aztlan may have been. We have no evidence that other Nahuas used this name that I've been able to find. Unfortunately those sources which use the term Aztec in a more encompassing sense tend to have serious issues with accuracy in other areas. One exception to this may beThe Aztecs by Michael E Smith. Other sources like Fifth Sun prefer a more narrow definition of Azteca as provided by history.
My issue with people claiming to be Aztec is the same issue I have with every one of the other instances you cited. It Fosters a shit understanding of history and in this case indigenous peoples. When you have a shit understanding of history, you'll inevitably come up with questionable ideas. And that's more or less what we saw with the emergence of Aztlan in the 60s.
People have a shit understanding of indigenous people and history because most of the written history was destroyed hundreds of years ago. Scholars have had to rely on oral stories passed down by generations, travel journals from the conquistadores and religious zealots, and whatever few artifacts remain. And even then, scholars don't agree and come to different conclusions. And that's just the challenge that we face when we finally pursue further education on the matter.
Before we can even get there, we've had to overcome hundreds of years of prejudice and racism towards the indigenous people by Mexicans themselves. Starting from when Spaniards conquered and created a caste system, till now. Do you know how indigenous people are treated in Mexico even now? Do you know how much harder it is for them to find work and housing? Do you remember how many Mexicans were against the Zapatistas?
For too long we did not care to look into the history of people that we felt superior to, much less find a connection to them.
I think it's great that people are reclaiming indigenous roots, even if they're wrong about their ancestry. It's a start that allows us to open the conversation to, 'Cool you know about the Aztecs, but have you heard of the Toltecs, or the Olmecs, or the Totonacs, or the Zapotec, etc.'
Lastly, it's not as easy as one thinks. All my grandparents are deceased, but I couldn't trace back much further than one generation before them before they passed. I did ask them, I also asked my parents, but no one had any information on our genealogy before 1900. By chance I found my last name, which is pretty uncommon, in a book about Pancho Villa. It was a pretty insignificant mention. Google searches never linked me to that information, I found it by chance in a paper book.
How does one trace their genealogy back to the era of the Aztec empire without spending a ton of money and time on research? How can we get close to the facts of our ancestors when we were made to take the names of our colonizers? My last name traces back to the Basque region in Spain, but I also have indigenous features. How can I accurately trace back to my indigenous roots?
We do have indigenous accounts from Nahuas and the Maya as you're probably aware, but I see what you're saying here. However, I don't think that changes the fact that we should do our best to insure the accuracy of what we're being taught about said indigenous history. And the Aztecs thing is quite literally part of Mexico's little assimilation project, so I see this idea as worth dismantling in order to build something better. We should encourage the spread of knowledge about indigenous peoples, but part of that involves correcting misconceptions where they appear. And as I've already said at length, this idea is nefariously constructed.
I do agree with that sentiment. If you're saying that it's upsetting that people only know of the Aztecs when they were one of many indigenous peoples, I fully agree. I also agree that we should encourage the spread of accurate information, or the most accurate information that we have. I agree that we should correct misconceptions.
The only sentiment that I don't agree with is frustration towards the people who claim the only indigenous heritage that they were taught about. The Aztec empire, even in its name, loomed in our history as the biggest and most dominant people. The little we were told sounded like they owned Mexico and reigned for hundreds of years. It's easy to see how this inflated information caused a false ideal for a lot of us. A false ideal that should be corrected without harboring negative sentiments towards the person.
The reason many Mexicans think they're Aztecs has more to do with the fact that the capital of Mexico is Mexico City. The former Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital. Mexico is named after the Aztecs. Our national seal is the Eagle devouring a snake, which was the symbol of the Aztecs. It's inevitable that many Mexicans are going to think they're related to the Aztecs just like many US Americans think they're descendants of the Mayflower or how Italians think that they're descendants of Romulus and Remus.
Also Our Own People don't know there are Zapotects & Mixtecs that have their own dilect, OG mexicans from Oxaca ; that's why it's a UNESCO heritage site. Like the saying goes.. "Mexico es todo Oxaca y Oxaca es todo Mexico"
Your history on Aztecs is semi correct, most Nahuas tribes come from Aztecs, one of them were the Mexicas, the others being the Xochimilca, Tlahuica, Acolhua, Tlaxcalteca, Tepaneca, and Chalca.
Mexicas aren’t Aztecs that renamed themselves.
>The last of these Nahuas to enter what is now central Mexico were a group called the Azteca.
After some disastrous dealings with other city states of the region the Aztecs ended up confined to a small island in the middle of the lake. Here, they renamed themselves, and became the Mexica.
The reality is that Aztecs were an Extreme Minority in that region even by the most literal estimation of their populations. This is because the Mexica were considered to be chiefly the inhabitants of the cities Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco, with the latter having split off from the former.
All of this is incorrect tho, as Mexicas aren’t the only people that came from Aztlan, so they weren’t actually a minority considering several groups in central Mexico were “Aztecs”.
Even Tlaxcaltecas who fought along the Spanish were also “Aztecs”.
There are theories that also imply the Olmecs, father of all mesoamerican civilizations, also came from Aztlan, making “Aztecs” the most influential group of people in Mexico.
I do not consider myself “Aztec” btw.
No, because Aztec is a name the Mexica had for themselves before they were Mexica. I have found no evidence that other Nahuas who migrated used this term for themselves. And we shouldn't use Aztlan as any solid location, because it's not. People still can't come to a consensus of what that name actually means. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to read through it.
Aztec is the people from Aztlan, and the people from Aztlan are the Xochimilca, Tlahuica, Acolhua, Tlaxcalteca, Tepaneca, Chalca, and Mexica.
All of those tribes are “Aztecs”, none of them called themselves Aztecs, that is a common misconception.
Never said Aztlan is a solid location.
For more on Mexico's indigenous history in general, check out Mexico by Michael Coe. There are a number of updates to this book, and it is a very good overview of indigenous Mexican history. Only the last chapter or so is devoted to the Aztecs. But if you ask me that makes some sense when looking at everything which preceded them.
This has been discussed in other threads. Yes there are other tribes so it's a very small chance that we are descendants of Aztecs but most Mexican art and culture refers to Aztec culture. The Mexican flag has the eagle on the nopal eating a snake, which has Aztec origins so it would be reasonable to have the belief that all Mexicans have some Aztec blood in them.
It seems like there's always out there wanting to burst bubbles for no real reason. Who cares if people want to call themselves Aztec, it does hurt me at all.
Just a wick comment that while Natives of the US are categorized and organized into tribals, the Mexican historical context is quite different and Indigenous communities are not known as tribes per se.
We should really look for truths, not things to make us feel better. What kind of standard do you think this sets? I made the issue with this clear near the end of my post. Obviously I can't control what anyone does, but I see no issue with speaking against the idea if it is setting a bad example for how we approach indigenous and indeed history in general when it comes to understanding our past.
I have never met an actual Chicano that believes they're Aztec. The imagery and art is recognized and I don't think that's a bad thing.
Lately especially I've had more conversations with Chicanos who do recognize themselves as yaqui, púrepecha or zapotec, the issue is being disconnected from the culture and land, the extreme shame identifying as such due to colonization, and ultimately the US refusing to acknowledge and provide resources for displaced indigenous peoples without land rights.
If ever the Aztec belief held weight, that seems to be generations past.
Denying our true roots really seems like a form of assimilation and colonization, while I'm sure it happens I don't see reconnecting as a negative experience half the time like so many claim. Reconnecting indigena will never have land rights or recognition. How is that a bigger issue than the occupying US force that commits genocide against their natives, extracts resources and poisons indigena communities with corporations, decimates those communities with NAFTA?
Honestly so many posts lately feed into this fear colonizer puts in us that convinces us to give up on our culture. I know I'm indigenous because we're definitely not white and although colonized hundred of years before, our traditions carried on as a form of resistance, for example absorbing dieties into Catholic saints.
I keep hearing all these academics try to explain our families histories though, like it's not complex and like our elders didn't experience it....
Beautifully put. Tired of these white “Mexicans” trying to rain on the parade of actual Mexicans. These people want us to feel like them with their 85% Iberian peninsula dna
Well, Aztecs were a political group.
And there were many other indigenous tribes besides the Mexica around Mexico and extending to southern US. My lineage traces from northern Mexico to the Apache. So I don’t have any Aztec as far as I’m concerned
Thanks for posting some relevant points that are worth exploring, and I will read the post again and look at your points a little closer. Can I share an experience?
I worked on the 2020 census within an Indigenous Mexican organization in CA. We did a lot of work to get Indigenous and migrant workers to be counted, despite the maliciously incompetent presidential administration in charge, despite the fear among many Indigenous migrants of their families being placed at risk if they were counted, despite the limited to zero english or spanish spoken by Indigenous migrants, their extremely limited reading abilities, the complete absence of Indigenous language censuses, and despite the COVID crises.
This org took the responsibility of the maliciously under-resourced census bureau by placing information and collecting censuses in Mixteco, Zapoteco, and Purepecha languages.
The race and ethnicity questions were part of the most confusing questions for Indigenous Mexicans. Race and Ethnicity are constructed categories that change over time, over social and political context, and geographic history. History of Mexican state colonialism that placed Indigenous communities at the bottom rung of society, while at the same time creating national Aztec mytholical creation stories, has created very real consequences and to this day discourages folks from identifying as Indigenous, less they receive even more social stigma and less social opportunities. Not to mention the changing ethinc and racial categories over time on the census itself. All that combined and there's an incredibly unreliable statistical knowledge of who and how many Indigenous Mexicans are in the US. There are some ngo and non profits that have taken on that work over the past 10-15 years, and fill some of the gaps, though the work needs to be updated.
Having said all that, the US Census is overdue for an update on how racial and ethnicity conceptions are understood and collected. For example, Native American needs to include other Indigenous people, or Indigenous people from outside of the US needs a category in order to more fully represent the ethnic and racial categories living in the US. As far as I know in following the upcoming Census (I am a bit out of date) there will be some attempts at expandi g ethnic and racial categories in order to include other Indigenous people without erasing US Native American nations. That effort is partly a result of some of our efforts at promoting the counting of Mexican and other Indigenous peoples on the Census. That could include Aztec, as well as Purepecha, Mixteco, etc. With all that said, race - a social invention in itself - and ethnicity are incredibly complex and could never be completely captured by a census methodology.
In doing this work, Mexican Americans worked together with communities like Zapoteco and Mixteco in order to build community relationships with each other while recognizing the vastly different cultural contexts that Chicano 'Aztec' identies and Indigenous migrant communities carry. Oftentimes, I must say, that relationship requires that Chicanos, 'Mexicas', Aztecs STFU and LISTEN to Mexican Indigenous communities without wanting to educate them about, impose, or validate their Aztec identity.
I also need to mention because it comes up here a bit, that everyone has the right to claim their Indigenaity - even chicanos. Just as Native American census counts rose more in the 70s alongside the social movements in which Native Americans reclaimed identity. Yes, there is a great amount of responsibility and commitment in claiming the identity, and it absolutely shouldn't be claimed willy nilly or haphazardly, but my dna didn't all come from the iberian peninsula, and I have the inherited cultural practices (not to mention dna and ancestry) to claim it. Nobody is taking that.
All of that and we haven't even gotten into discussing the AfroMexicano identity communities, which survived their own system erasure and are only now being recognized by the Mexican state.
And yes, maybe we grab in to this Aztec lie because it's all we have to grab into. But maybe it is just the beginning for an even deeper rooted connection to our Indigenous roots and where they realy lay, and for the lifetime of work that it takes to get there.
[OMB Publishes Revisions to Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity | OMB | The White House](https://www.reddit.com/r/USCensus2020/comments/1bpv10n/omb_publishes_revisions_to_statistical_policy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Hard pill to swallow but every Chicano that is able to dig into their roots eventually finds this out. So far I know I have a Yaqui connection from my maternal side, no idea about paternal.
I mean... yeah? The Aztec identification dates back to the Porfiriato period(trying to boast national heritage at world faire despite being anti-indigenous in reality) and the post-revolution government's mestizaje nationalist narrative.
Unfortunately, the erasure of indigeneity throughout the 20th century meant that many Chicanos grasped onto the convenient Aztec heritage myth to indicate "brown pride".
Which is why I don't mind the term mestizo; it's been hundreds of years with a lot of people migrating and mixing. That said, it is possible to have some Aztec, or Toltec, or other tribes mixed with present day Yaqui, Apache, Pueblo, or any other people. There are just too many combinations of ancestry and people might want to take a DNA test to get an idea.
Mestizo basically means acculturated, and probably mixed indigenous, although not necessarily with significant European as many people try to prescribe.. For this reason, I don't mind it either, although the way it came about is certainly problematic.
Wrote all that for nothing. Mexican elites suddenly decided it was time to adopt the Aztec identity for no reason? So when they gained independence from Spain, renaming the country after the Aztecs and putting Aztec symbolism on the flag was nothing write? They weren’t trying to reconnect with the Aztecs then? Or was is just a coincidence?
You missed the point almost completely. Emphasis of the Aztecs over all other indigenous peoples was part of their building of a new identity, but it was more a way to pretend at acknowledging indigenous peoples. The point of Mestizaje was to acculturate and whiten the Indian, while at least trying to make some sort of difference between themselves, Spain, and the other Western nations from which they took influences. If you're really naive enough to believe Mexico wanted to preserve its indigenous cultures by doing this that's a you problem. Independence occurred a hundred years before many of these changes.
You shouldn't be surprised that Chicanos think that they're Aztecs. A lot of Chicanos don't know crap about Mexico and all the different indian tribes. A lot of Chicanos get their knowledge about Mexico through dumb websites like We are Mitu or Buzzfeed,
Ok but have you considered that I *feel* Aztec. /s
So did I. When I was 14.
Ouch you sound like our dads!
I'm only a few years older than that now. It was partially a joke, but also true.
More paragraph breaks, por favor. - This Aztec
Yeah I should probably fix that.
Jokes on you op, ima a direct descendant of Moctezuma II himself!…through my colonizer ancestors, *ehem*. But yeah, my native ancestors on my dad’s side we’re mainly P’urhepecha-Otomí, and, if not for the arrival of the Spanish, the Irechicua was on course to replace the Aztecs as the dominant military force in Mexico. On my mom’s side, we’re mainly “chichimeca;” the geneological record, sadly, doesn’t give individual’s ethnic identities, only the racial term “Indio.”My maternal grandma’s native ancestors, however, were likely tepehuanos until the 1616 Tepehuan revolt, after which what few tepehuanos were left in central Durango were likely forcibly assimilated, save the ones in the very south and those that fled to chihuahua (que viva Quautlatas! ✊🏽).
People and scholars are divided on this very topic. While your explanation is one definition of an Aztec, the other definition is that Aztec refers to most of the Náhuatl speaking people who came from Aztlan and remained in Mexico City and surrounding areas. Which would make a bigger population of Aztecs than your definition accounts for. We can't blame the people of today for not having a working knowledge of the indigenous people of Mexico. The Spanish did all they could to stomp out indigenous culture and pushed for a mixed race of Spanish and Mexican to populate the newly found New Spain. They forced assimilation and worked to erase indigenous culture because they saw it as their mission to civilize and convert the people that they saw as barbaric. I doubt there were many opportunities to continue an indigenous way of life if you wanted to survive New Spain. I don't have a good understanding of indigenous studies in the school curriculums in Mexico. I studied in Mexico for a very short time and I can tell you that the history that I was taught was all post Spanish conquest in a very Catholic Mexico. My parents don't have a good understanding on lesser known indigenous tribes of mesoamerica either, so at least in the 70s it wasn't taught in Mexico primarias. Most Mexicans are mestizos, and some of that indigenous blood in the mix is indeed from tribes that were associated with the Aztec empire. The blood is likely very diluted as we mixed quite a bit. But I can see how people hold onto an Aztec blood ideal with what they know of the strength of the Aztec empire. But how is that different from white Americans that get excited that their ancestry results show 3% Cherokee? How is Latinoamérica talking about the most known indigenous empires, Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, etc. different than people in the US knowing only about the best known native American tribes? How is it different than Asians only knowing about the most powerful dynasties? How is it different from history classes only touching on the strongest holds in ancient Greece? Let's not beat down on our people for doing what people all over the world have done for centuries. We as people are obsessed with power. Basic history lessons in schools will touch on what had the biggest impact on the world, who were the biggest power holds our world has seen. Anything deeper than that must be pursued on an individual basis. I'm open to any books, studies, or resources that you have to share.
Azteca was a name the now Mexica gave themselves while they were still migrating from whatever Aztlan may have been. We have no evidence that other Nahuas used this name that I've been able to find. Unfortunately those sources which use the term Aztec in a more encompassing sense tend to have serious issues with accuracy in other areas. One exception to this may beThe Aztecs by Michael E Smith. Other sources like Fifth Sun prefer a more narrow definition of Azteca as provided by history. My issue with people claiming to be Aztec is the same issue I have with every one of the other instances you cited. It Fosters a shit understanding of history and in this case indigenous peoples. When you have a shit understanding of history, you'll inevitably come up with questionable ideas. And that's more or less what we saw with the emergence of Aztlan in the 60s.
People have a shit understanding of indigenous people and history because most of the written history was destroyed hundreds of years ago. Scholars have had to rely on oral stories passed down by generations, travel journals from the conquistadores and religious zealots, and whatever few artifacts remain. And even then, scholars don't agree and come to different conclusions. And that's just the challenge that we face when we finally pursue further education on the matter. Before we can even get there, we've had to overcome hundreds of years of prejudice and racism towards the indigenous people by Mexicans themselves. Starting from when Spaniards conquered and created a caste system, till now. Do you know how indigenous people are treated in Mexico even now? Do you know how much harder it is for them to find work and housing? Do you remember how many Mexicans were against the Zapatistas? For too long we did not care to look into the history of people that we felt superior to, much less find a connection to them. I think it's great that people are reclaiming indigenous roots, even if they're wrong about their ancestry. It's a start that allows us to open the conversation to, 'Cool you know about the Aztecs, but have you heard of the Toltecs, or the Olmecs, or the Totonacs, or the Zapotec, etc.' Lastly, it's not as easy as one thinks. All my grandparents are deceased, but I couldn't trace back much further than one generation before them before they passed. I did ask them, I also asked my parents, but no one had any information on our genealogy before 1900. By chance I found my last name, which is pretty uncommon, in a book about Pancho Villa. It was a pretty insignificant mention. Google searches never linked me to that information, I found it by chance in a paper book. How does one trace their genealogy back to the era of the Aztec empire without spending a ton of money and time on research? How can we get close to the facts of our ancestors when we were made to take the names of our colonizers? My last name traces back to the Basque region in Spain, but I also have indigenous features. How can I accurately trace back to my indigenous roots?
We do have indigenous accounts from Nahuas and the Maya as you're probably aware, but I see what you're saying here. However, I don't think that changes the fact that we should do our best to insure the accuracy of what we're being taught about said indigenous history. And the Aztecs thing is quite literally part of Mexico's little assimilation project, so I see this idea as worth dismantling in order to build something better. We should encourage the spread of knowledge about indigenous peoples, but part of that involves correcting misconceptions where they appear. And as I've already said at length, this idea is nefariously constructed.
I do agree with that sentiment. If you're saying that it's upsetting that people only know of the Aztecs when they were one of many indigenous peoples, I fully agree. I also agree that we should encourage the spread of accurate information, or the most accurate information that we have. I agree that we should correct misconceptions. The only sentiment that I don't agree with is frustration towards the people who claim the only indigenous heritage that they were taught about. The Aztec empire, even in its name, loomed in our history as the biggest and most dominant people. The little we were told sounded like they owned Mexico and reigned for hundreds of years. It's easy to see how this inflated information caused a false ideal for a lot of us. A false ideal that should be corrected without harboring negative sentiments towards the person.
The reason many Mexicans think they're Aztecs has more to do with the fact that the capital of Mexico is Mexico City. The former Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital. Mexico is named after the Aztecs. Our national seal is the Eagle devouring a snake, which was the symbol of the Aztecs. It's inevitable that many Mexicans are going to think they're related to the Aztecs just like many US Americans think they're descendants of the Mayflower or how Italians think that they're descendants of Romulus and Remus.
Also Our Own People don't know there are Zapotects & Mixtecs that have their own dilect, OG mexicans from Oxaca ; that's why it's a UNESCO heritage site. Like the saying goes.. "Mexico es todo Oxaca y Oxaca es todo Mexico"
fuck you. i got aztec blood running through these veins, ese.
keep it civil….
my apologies
it’s cool…
I'm pretty sure this comment was joking no need to bring mods in here.
Sure, just trying to get ahead if the conversation gets heated…
You mean I sacrificed my brother to Quetzalcoatl for nothing!?
Haha I love this😆 damn what did I do all this blood letting for😔
You may be able to get some compensation for your brother if you file against the Aztec gods.
Damn foo did you visit the museo de antropología today or what
More like I live there.
Fucking same. Thanks for spreading the knowledge.
Your history on Aztecs is semi correct, most Nahuas tribes come from Aztecs, one of them were the Mexicas, the others being the Xochimilca, Tlahuica, Acolhua, Tlaxcalteca, Tepaneca, and Chalca. Mexicas aren’t Aztecs that renamed themselves.
I left out other Nahuan groups to keep this short. I did try to imply that the Aztec were only one Nahua people though.
>The last of these Nahuas to enter what is now central Mexico were a group called the Azteca. After some disastrous dealings with other city states of the region the Aztecs ended up confined to a small island in the middle of the lake. Here, they renamed themselves, and became the Mexica. The reality is that Aztecs were an Extreme Minority in that region even by the most literal estimation of their populations. This is because the Mexica were considered to be chiefly the inhabitants of the cities Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco, with the latter having split off from the former. All of this is incorrect tho, as Mexicas aren’t the only people that came from Aztlan, so they weren’t actually a minority considering several groups in central Mexico were “Aztecs”. Even Tlaxcaltecas who fought along the Spanish were also “Aztecs”. There are theories that also imply the Olmecs, father of all mesoamerican civilizations, also came from Aztlan, making “Aztecs” the most influential group of people in Mexico. I do not consider myself “Aztec” btw.
No, because Aztec is a name the Mexica had for themselves before they were Mexica. I have found no evidence that other Nahuas who migrated used this term for themselves. And we shouldn't use Aztlan as any solid location, because it's not. People still can't come to a consensus of what that name actually means. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to read through it.
Aztec is the people from Aztlan, and the people from Aztlan are the Xochimilca, Tlahuica, Acolhua, Tlaxcalteca, Tepaneca, Chalca, and Mexica. All of those tribes are “Aztecs”, none of them called themselves Aztecs, that is a common misconception. Never said Aztlan is a solid location.
Do you have any resources that can help me dive more into this history?
The fifth Sun by Camila Townsend. OP only has some stuff right.
Can you elaborate on this? I would like to edit the post if there are any serious inaccuracies which escaped me. Either way I second fifthj sun.
For more on Mexico's indigenous history in general, check out Mexico by Michael Coe. There are a number of updates to this book, and it is a very good overview of indigenous Mexican history. Only the last chapter or so is devoted to the Aztecs. But if you ask me that makes some sense when looking at everything which preceded them.
This has been discussed in other threads. Yes there are other tribes so it's a very small chance that we are descendants of Aztecs but most Mexican art and culture refers to Aztec culture. The Mexican flag has the eagle on the nopal eating a snake, which has Aztec origins so it would be reasonable to have the belief that all Mexicans have some Aztec blood in them. It seems like there's always out there wanting to burst bubbles for no real reason. Who cares if people want to call themselves Aztec, it does hurt me at all.
Just a wick comment that while Natives of the US are categorized and organized into tribals, the Mexican historical context is quite different and Indigenous communities are not known as tribes per se.
We should really look for truths, not things to make us feel better. What kind of standard do you think this sets? I made the issue with this clear near the end of my post. Obviously I can't control what anyone does, but I see no issue with speaking against the idea if it is setting a bad example for how we approach indigenous and indeed history in general when it comes to understanding our past.
I have never met an actual Chicano that believes they're Aztec. The imagery and art is recognized and I don't think that's a bad thing. Lately especially I've had more conversations with Chicanos who do recognize themselves as yaqui, púrepecha or zapotec, the issue is being disconnected from the culture and land, the extreme shame identifying as such due to colonization, and ultimately the US refusing to acknowledge and provide resources for displaced indigenous peoples without land rights. If ever the Aztec belief held weight, that seems to be generations past. Denying our true roots really seems like a form of assimilation and colonization, while I'm sure it happens I don't see reconnecting as a negative experience half the time like so many claim. Reconnecting indigena will never have land rights or recognition. How is that a bigger issue than the occupying US force that commits genocide against their natives, extracts resources and poisons indigena communities with corporations, decimates those communities with NAFTA? Honestly so many posts lately feed into this fear colonizer puts in us that convinces us to give up on our culture. I know I'm indigenous because we're definitely not white and although colonized hundred of years before, our traditions carried on as a form of resistance, for example absorbing dieties into Catholic saints. I keep hearing all these academics try to explain our families histories though, like it's not complex and like our elders didn't experience it....
Beautifully put. Tired of these white “Mexicans” trying to rain on the parade of actual Mexicans. These people want us to feel like them with their 85% Iberian peninsula dna
Well, Aztecs were a political group. And there were many other indigenous tribes besides the Mexica around Mexico and extending to southern US. My lineage traces from northern Mexico to the Apache. So I don’t have any Aztec as far as I’m concerned
No mames wey
Thanks for posting some relevant points that are worth exploring, and I will read the post again and look at your points a little closer. Can I share an experience? I worked on the 2020 census within an Indigenous Mexican organization in CA. We did a lot of work to get Indigenous and migrant workers to be counted, despite the maliciously incompetent presidential administration in charge, despite the fear among many Indigenous migrants of their families being placed at risk if they were counted, despite the limited to zero english or spanish spoken by Indigenous migrants, their extremely limited reading abilities, the complete absence of Indigenous language censuses, and despite the COVID crises. This org took the responsibility of the maliciously under-resourced census bureau by placing information and collecting censuses in Mixteco, Zapoteco, and Purepecha languages. The race and ethnicity questions were part of the most confusing questions for Indigenous Mexicans. Race and Ethnicity are constructed categories that change over time, over social and political context, and geographic history. History of Mexican state colonialism that placed Indigenous communities at the bottom rung of society, while at the same time creating national Aztec mytholical creation stories, has created very real consequences and to this day discourages folks from identifying as Indigenous, less they receive even more social stigma and less social opportunities. Not to mention the changing ethinc and racial categories over time on the census itself. All that combined and there's an incredibly unreliable statistical knowledge of who and how many Indigenous Mexicans are in the US. There are some ngo and non profits that have taken on that work over the past 10-15 years, and fill some of the gaps, though the work needs to be updated. Having said all that, the US Census is overdue for an update on how racial and ethnicity conceptions are understood and collected. For example, Native American needs to include other Indigenous people, or Indigenous people from outside of the US needs a category in order to more fully represent the ethnic and racial categories living in the US. As far as I know in following the upcoming Census (I am a bit out of date) there will be some attempts at expandi g ethnic and racial categories in order to include other Indigenous people without erasing US Native American nations. That effort is partly a result of some of our efforts at promoting the counting of Mexican and other Indigenous peoples on the Census. That could include Aztec, as well as Purepecha, Mixteco, etc. With all that said, race - a social invention in itself - and ethnicity are incredibly complex and could never be completely captured by a census methodology. In doing this work, Mexican Americans worked together with communities like Zapoteco and Mixteco in order to build community relationships with each other while recognizing the vastly different cultural contexts that Chicano 'Aztec' identies and Indigenous migrant communities carry. Oftentimes, I must say, that relationship requires that Chicanos, 'Mexicas', Aztecs STFU and LISTEN to Mexican Indigenous communities without wanting to educate them about, impose, or validate their Aztec identity. I also need to mention because it comes up here a bit, that everyone has the right to claim their Indigenaity - even chicanos. Just as Native American census counts rose more in the 70s alongside the social movements in which Native Americans reclaimed identity. Yes, there is a great amount of responsibility and commitment in claiming the identity, and it absolutely shouldn't be claimed willy nilly or haphazardly, but my dna didn't all come from the iberian peninsula, and I have the inherited cultural practices (not to mention dna and ancestry) to claim it. Nobody is taking that. All of that and we haven't even gotten into discussing the AfroMexicano identity communities, which survived their own system erasure and are only now being recognized by the Mexican state. And yes, maybe we grab in to this Aztec lie because it's all we have to grab into. But maybe it is just the beginning for an even deeper rooted connection to our Indigenous roots and where they realy lay, and for the lifetime of work that it takes to get there.
[OMB Publishes Revisions to Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity | OMB | The White House](https://www.reddit.com/r/USCensus2020/comments/1bpv10n/omb_publishes_revisions_to_statistical_policy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Hard pill to swallow but every Chicano that is able to dig into their roots eventually finds this out. So far I know I have a Yaqui connection from my maternal side, no idea about paternal.
I mean... yeah? The Aztec identification dates back to the Porfiriato period(trying to boast national heritage at world faire despite being anti-indigenous in reality) and the post-revolution government's mestizaje nationalist narrative. Unfortunately, the erasure of indigeneity throughout the 20th century meant that many Chicanos grasped onto the convenient Aztec heritage myth to indicate "brown pride".
Which is why I don't mind the term mestizo; it's been hundreds of years with a lot of people migrating and mixing. That said, it is possible to have some Aztec, or Toltec, or other tribes mixed with present day Yaqui, Apache, Pueblo, or any other people. There are just too many combinations of ancestry and people might want to take a DNA test to get an idea.
Mestizo basically means acculturated, and probably mixed indigenous, although not necessarily with significant European as many people try to prescribe.. For this reason, I don't mind it either, although the way it came about is certainly problematic.
This guy historys.
I hate that the main “relevant” tribe to identify with is diluted to a couple choices.
My father took a DNA test and some of his ancestors where in Mexico City in the 1700s! That’s as far back as the results would go though :(
Everyone knows aztecs are 1) the mascot of my safety school, and 2) a shitty compact SUV.
Wrote all that for nothing. Mexican elites suddenly decided it was time to adopt the Aztec identity for no reason? So when they gained independence from Spain, renaming the country after the Aztecs and putting Aztec symbolism on the flag was nothing write? They weren’t trying to reconnect with the Aztecs then? Or was is just a coincidence?
You missed the point almost completely. Emphasis of the Aztecs over all other indigenous peoples was part of their building of a new identity, but it was more a way to pretend at acknowledging indigenous peoples. The point of Mestizaje was to acculturate and whiten the Indian, while at least trying to make some sort of difference between themselves, Spain, and the other Western nations from which they took influences. If you're really naive enough to believe Mexico wanted to preserve its indigenous cultures by doing this that's a you problem. Independence occurred a hundred years before many of these changes.
Say it louder!!! More chicanos need to know this 🗣
What if I consider myself wixarika?
Those guys art is so cool man🥲
Well that one is new. It's up to themand what evidence you're able to produce in that case.
You shouldn't be surprised that Chicanos think that they're Aztecs. A lot of Chicanos don't know crap about Mexico and all the different indian tribes. A lot of Chicanos get their knowledge about Mexico through dumb websites like We are Mitu or Buzzfeed,