Online Status
Page 170 (of 176) in the Civil Birth Records for San Miguel el Alto, Jalisco, the following entry refers to "indio" but I cannot determine if it says "no indio" or "ni indio" . . . or why this is referenced in all of the civil records in this book/record:
Entry #581, 21 Dec 1884, birth of Maria Espectacion Avalos (parents Ramon Avalos & Jacinta Plasencia).
In another book (1883) from the same municipality, I found an entry that read "no indigena." Does anyone know the exact meaning of this term and why it was included in these records?
I know the literal translation (not indigenous), but is this what was intended? Did I read it incorrectly? Does anyone know why this was an important distinction to document during this time period?
I was hoping this line of my family was indeed indigenous, so I'm hoping I misread or misinterpreted.
Thanks for any help, Roxanne Ocampo
- Inicie sesión o registrese para enviar comentarios
No indigena
Hi Roxanne,
I also found the term "no indigena" in Nayarit and Jalisco civil registrations. Also, I believe that the opposite term was "matriculado," to refer to indigenous individuals; I've also seen "de los antes llamados indios." This I know because a family who was previously called "indios" was (after the independence) called "matricullados del pueblo."
My hope is that after the independence everyone was considered "ciudadanos" of the new nation, and had done away with the caste attributions. But apparently, some still felt a need to continue making the determination. (?)
Saludos,
Claudia
www.guadalajaradispensas.com
www.sagradamitra.com
no indio
I do not know what to tell you about the exact meaning of that term. As you said literally means no indigenous, but why it was use it in this period of time is something I do not know. And I see it odd.I fund a study about "indigenismo en el Occidente de Mexico" It means in Jalisco, Michoacan, etc. that could be a clue about why government started to use the term "no indio" but I am not sure about it.
These are the link and the quote about it
http://www.redinterlocal.org/IMG/pdf_rojas-indigenas_occ_mex.pdf
Es importante remarcar que durante la restauración de la República Federal en 1867, los liberales emprendieron una feroz guerra contra la institución de la comunidad indígena, que influyó formalmente en la abolición de la tierra comunal y de los sistemas locales de autoridad. De manera concomitante, se reforzó la carga negativa del término indio, que incluso fue borrado del lenguaje forense.
Si bien ciertos discursos oficiales ensalzaban el glorioso pasado prehispánico y condenaban el fanatismo virreinal para legitimar el gobierno independiente, los indígenas vivos no se concebían como factor de identidad nacional. Para nacionalizarse, los indígenas tenían que castellanizarnos, tenían que convertirse en propietarios particulares, tenían que participar en el mercado nacional y aceptar que su comunidad no era la local, sino la de la Nación Mexicana. Es decir, que todos teníamos que ser parejos ante la ley.
Good luck!
Jorge Elias
Miami, FL