Mestizaje: An Unrealized Ideology

In his essay “The Race Problem in Latin American”, José Vasconcelos claims that the mixing of the Indigenous and European races that began in Mexico during Spanish conquest of the 1500s led to the formation of a mestizo race of superior quality (104). He argues against denying the complex history of Mexico, both its Pre-Columbian origins and the later Spanish conquistadors, and instead advocates for celebrating this mestizo past and the positive attributes both races contribute to a fused culture (105). The nationalist sentiments that arose from the Mexican Revolution however did not embrace the true idea of a mestizo national identity that Vasconcelos outlines, but instead sought to return completely back to an indigenous dominated culture, disregarding and even villainizing any foreign influence altogether. Vasconcelos himself acknowledges this polarizing sentiment in his paper, citing the Zapata movement of the Revolution as an attempt at reviving pure Indian dominance over the country, rather than a mestizo one (102). This glorification of indigenousness was a central theme to the post-revolution mural movement that swept Mexico. Diego Rivera explored this theme in his mural “The History of Mexico”, providing a distinct commentary on the role that indigenous people as well as Europeans played in constructing a contemporary national Mexican identity. In his book “The Underdogs”, Mariano Azuela uses the fictional character of Luis Cevelantes to express the anti-European and elitist sentiment of the revolution. Both Rivera’s mural “The History of Mexico” and Azuela’s character exemplify the post-revolution promotion of an indigenous national identity, rather than a mestizaje one that Vasconcelos promotes.

Azuela’s promotion of an indigenous national identity as opposed to a mestizage one is clear thourgh the initial disdain Demetrio and his fellow revolutionaries feel towards Luis Cervantes. They call him, curro, a derogatory term used for upper-class citizens who think too highly of themselves and thus treat poor, indigenous, or mestizo Mexicans with contempt (Azuela xvi). Cervantes’ European complexion with “light green eyes…pinkish cheeks…curled blonde hair…[and] delicate white skin” classifies him as a member of this elite, Mexican upper-class, which the revolution attempts to dismantle (Azuela 36). The distrust and distain for this upper-class is exemplified in Venancio’s warning to Demetrio that “The fruits of many a revolution have been lost because curros were around” (Azuela 33). The infiltration of the Mexican upper-class with European characteristics is largely a result of the authoritarian rule of Porfirio Díaz from 1876 through 1911, who attempted to modernize Mexico through the adoption and celebration of European ideals, many of which were mostly only embraced by the upper class. His dictatorship was also classified by an increasing wealth gap between the rich and the poor resulting from the exploitation of indigenous farmers. This exploitation along with the foreign focus of the government lead to peasant unrest and an increasing disdain for the bourgeoisie class, the ultimate catalysts of the revolution. The irrationalness of Cervantes’ contemptuous treatment further exemplifies this strong anti-bourgeoisie and thus anti-European sentiment among revolutionaries. Cervantes is superior in many ways to the poor peasants turned revolutionaries, and would be a valuable asset to their cause. Unlike them, he knows how read and write and perform basic medical tasks, like properly dressing Demetrio’s wound, something the indigenous villagers are incapable of. Their original rejection of him due entirely to his elitist upbringings and European appearance is noticeably nonsensical to the reader. However, this blind rejection epitomizes the strong post-revolution, anti-European sentiment in Mexico that hindered the country from truly embracing Vasconcelos’ idea of mestizaje. This sentiment instead prompts an attempt at cultivating a purely indigenous Mexican identity, one that refuses to recognize the significant influence of the Spanish conquest, be it both good and bad.

This polarized, contemptuous view of foreign influence and the resulting celebration of indigenousness is most famously exemplified in Diego Rivera’s mural “The History of Mexico” painted in the National Palace during the 1930s. In the mural, Rivera attempts to illustrate the multifaceted history of Mexico and its influence on a present-day national identity. Although incredibly detailed, the central theme of the mural is that of a “heroic national tradition of resistance” among indigenous people (Rochfort 87). He depicts all negative events in Mexico’s history to arise from foreign involvement, and the defining characteristic of indigenous heroism to be exemplified in their resistance to this oppressive and detrimental foreign influence (Rochfort 88). His utopian portrayal of the pre-Columbian world characterizes it as something Mexico should strive to return to- a world without any foreign influence. Although he attempts to at least address the brutal realities of this supposed utopia, such as the depiction of intertribal conflict in the bottom left corner of this panel, the reference is subtle and largely lost among the chaos of the larger mural. The pre-Columbian world panel stands out from the rest of the mural because of its sense of order and peacefulness. In contrast to the rest of the mural, there is almost a geometric orderliness to this panel. The figures are spaced far apart unlike the other panels where crowded bodies fill every inch. The pervasive use of the color white and the content expressions of the figures contributes to a sense of peacefulness. Rivera uses these visual techniques to characterize the pre-Columbian world as a utopia. Rivera deliberately idealizes the pre-Columbian world in order to contrast the brutal Spanish conquest. His romanticism of the pre-Columbian world exemplifies the post-revolution promotion of the indigenous people and the stanch rejection of any foreign cultural influence, creating a cultural identity far from the mestizaje one Vasconcelos envisions.

Rochfort claims Rivera’s iconic mural “is a work that echoes the thrust of nationalist assertions and definition based on the concept mestizo” (93), but if this is the case then the mestizo ideal that Rivera is promoting is not the same one Vasconcelos is. As demonstrated by his utopian depiction of Pre-Columbian Mexico, Rivera has no intention of celebrating a mixed culture. The national identity that his work promotes is that of the Indian, not of the mestizo. Luis Cervantes’ character further demonstrates this rejection of European and foreign influence. The true coming together and acceptance of the two races entrenched in Mexico’s history, as promoted by Vasconcelos, is unfortunately still lacking in a post-revolutionary Mexico.