Mexican nationalism

RESUMEN

“Miguel Hidalgo en los relatos de nación. Del patriotismo criollo al nacionalismo posrevolucionario” no es una investigación que se ocupe de la vida y obra de Hidalgo. Este estudio desarrolla  cómo se construyó el mito nacional en torno a este personaje y cuál fue la importancia que tuvo dicho mito en el proceso de invención de la nación mexicana durante el siglo XIX y primera mitad del XX.

        El trabajo está enfocado en dos aspectos importantes: se aborda cómo el mito del “padre de la patria” ha sido utilizado como estrategia de legitimación política  y como fuerza cohesionadora que facilitó que la población se identificara y sintiera parte de una sola comunidad cultural y política: la nación mexicana

        Para desarrollar la investigación fue necesario identificar los distintos imaginarios nacionales que fueron impulsados desde el siglo XIX para explicar qué era la nación mexicana, qué era lo mexicano y quiénes eran los mexicanos. Cada uno de estos imaginarios fue promovido por diversas condiciones políticas, económicas y tecnológicas. Una vez que se tuvieron estos contextos, en cada uno de ellos se desarrolla qué interpretación se hacía de Miguel Hidalgo, cómo las elites rectoras del país reinterpretaron y se apropiaron de su culto para justificar su poder político y para potenciar una identidad nacional en el resto de la población.

        Esta estrategia metodológica fue derivada de la llamada “teoría modernista sobre el nacionalismo y la invención de las naciones”, la cual sostiene que las naciones modernas son construcciones culturales que tuvieron cabida a finales del siglo XVIII e inicios del XIX, cuando se desplazó la tradición divino-dinástica de los Estados de Antiguo régimen y “la Nación” fue colocada como fuente de soberanía de los Estados modernos. La investigación se centró en cuatro tipo de fuentes: la historiografía clásica del siglo XIX, las celebraciones patrióticas, la enseñanza de historia patria en sistema escolar influenciado por el gobierno y a partir de las fuentes icónicas (monumentos, pintura, etc.) que han tenido un peso en la construcción de imaginarios nacionales.

        Como última precisión, es pertinente mencionar que la tesis, aunque está centrada en la invención del mito del “padre de la patria”, también aporta conocimiento sobre el proceso de invención de la nación mexicana y lo que esto ha implicado: la manipulación del discurso histórico.

Palabras clave:    Miguel Hidalgo, nacionalismo, nación, mito, héroe.

"The year 2010 in Mexico marked both the 200th anniversary of the start of its independence movement and the 100th anniversary of its revolution. Besides several public events, a number of items including commemorative coins, banknotes, and stamps were produced to mark the occasion.
This article analyses the postage stamps issued to commemorate the Mexican bicentennial. It does so by comparing these stamps with the ones issued for previous independence anniversaries, and then tracking changes and continuities in their messages.
It is found that, on the one hand, the bicentennial postage stamps of Mexico promoted a particular narrative regarding the historical, territorial, and ethnic features of the Mexican independence process, which in many ways departs from previous, long-established nationalist narratives. But on the other hand, bicentennial stamps also demonstrate the influence of traditional interpretations of the national past – particularly those related to the Partido Revolucionario Institucional's (Institutional Revolutionary Party, PRI) revolutionary nationalism doctrine – which are still being reproduced even after the 2000 democratic transition."

Items like coins, banknotes and political posters have been regarded as useful sources for research on the diffusion of nationalist messages. In contrast, postage stamps have been largely ignored for such purpose. My hypothesis is, stamps are “carriers” of an official national imaginary about the history, features, composition and development of the issuing nation. A first section of the paper develops this argument by presenting some key features and paradoxes of stamps, explaining how states manage and intervene in stamp design, and presenting a typology of messages about the nation that can be found on them. A second section will test my arguments by means of both a synchronic and a diachronic comparison. The first uses a sample of stamps issued by Germany on two contrasting periods (Nazi vs. Federal Republic) to find how the political and ideological changes were presented. The second comparison utilizes a sample of stamps issued by Spain and Mexico to commemorate 500 years of the arrival of Columbus to the American continent. It analyzes if, and how, those stamps offer contrasting visions regarding an episode that is so crucial for the national narratives of each.

In his highly influential work on the “small,” stateless European nations, Hroch seems to assume that patriotic movements have a homogeneous view about the core relations or “ties” that constitute and identify their nations. This assumption seems generally correct for the cases Hroch studies. However, is it correct if applied to the study of those patriotic movements developing in comparatively larger, heterogeneous and underdeveloped societies, comprising several ethnic groups bound together by the colonialist rule of an autocratic empire? I argue that, while the colonial experience can lead to the creation of some ties among the dominated populations, it also affects the way patriotic movements perceive their own nations. As a result, the phase of patriotic agitation can involve diverse movements addressing the same nation, but each having a particular view on the features and history of it. Such contested patriotic doctrines can lead to very important variations in the political agendas and goals of those movements, especially when they reach the mass phase. The nineteenth century movements in New Spain/Mexico will be used as an example.

Despite being citizens, naturalised Mexicans are subjected to large restrictions in their political, civic, and even labour rights. Why such discriminatory regime is applied to such a reduced group of citizens, in a country that officially prides itself as open, tolerant, and having an intrinsically ‘mixed’ national origin? My hypothesis is that the roots of such differentiated treatment are the ideological legacy of the ‘Revolutionary Nationalism’ doctrine, which was promoted by the Mexican state during most of the 20th century, and is still expressed in laws and policies.

Based on two years of ethnographic fieldwork traveling with three ‘artesanos’ (mask-makers) from rural Michoacan and ‘studying up’ as they circulated through fairs and folk art competitions across Mexico, this paper describes how indigenous artists in rural Michoacan are routinely incentivized and sometimes cudgeled within majoritarian institutions of art in Mexico to enact self-racializing stereotypes and stigmatized indigenous identities and to produce and showcase the so called traditional works and performances that conform to static and primitivist stereotypes. At play here is the interlinked legacy and persistence of paternalism, indigenismo, nationalism, and primitivism. These logics continue to play out in reconstituted terms beyond or after the legal, political, and official embrace of pluriculturalism and the multiethnic community in Mexico. The embedded ethnographic vignette and the analysis that follows suggests how a strategy of ‘studying-up’ into coloniality furthers the delinking program. In line with the strategy of delinking, the ethnographic and conceptual work in this article proceeds by decentring or provincializing a set of dichotomous or binary oppositions that are commonly expressed and articulated within the Mexican heritage field, which would oppose indigenous tradition and culture against urban and mestizo modernity, civilization, and culture. The analysis diverges from a common or dominant approach to delinking in one crucial way – it does not engage in ‘borderthinking’ by looking towards the margins; it does not counterpose subaltern indigenous knowledge with privileged occidental knowledge. Instead, presenting an analysis that ‘studies up’, the paper applies the tools of decolonial theory and method and critical theory to analyse and interrogate elite Mexican patrimonial institutions and culture, which in fact epitomize coloniality and engender indigenous vulnerability. The article concludes by discussing the value and the potential pitfalls of this approach, in order to further the decolonizing project from within the space of cultural studies.

The present text analyses the development and core ideological nations that guide nationality/citizenship laws in Mexico. It argues that some aspects of the 'Revolutionary Nationalism' doctrine still shapes laws and policies in this area, for instance, regarding the ethno-cultural composition of the Mexican nation, or the defensive stance against any type of foreign intervention. This has direct consequences, for instance, in laws and policies regarding naturalization. What is more, it has created a system of 'categories of citizenship', with different rights attached to each one – so naturalized Mexicans, as well as Mexicans with dual citizenship, face an open, legally-sanctioned discrimination in their political and labour rights. Further instances of inequalities, as well as current political debates, are also examined.

Despite being citizens, naturalised Mexicans are subjected to large restrictions in their political, civic, and even labour rights. Why such discriminatory regime is applied to such a reduced group of citizens, in a country that officially prides itself as open, tolerant, and having an intrinsically ‘mixed’ national origin? My hypothesis is that the roots of such differentiated treatment are the ideological legacy of the ‘Revolutionary Nationalism’ doctrine, which was promoted by the Mexican state during most of the 20th century, and is still expressed in laws and policies.

Desde los años 90, México ha experimentado cambios importantes tanto en la definición de la nacionalidad mexicana, al aceptar la doble nacionalidad, como sobre el ejercicio de derechos políticos –en particular, para los migrantes mexicanos en el exterior. Sin embargo, estas reformas no se han correspondido con una revisión de los derechos de ciertas comunidades en el país. Es el caso de los extranjeros residentes en México. Las tendencias internacionales apuntan hacia la apertura a la participación cívico-política de los inmigrantes (esto es, de los no-ciudadanos) en las sociedades de destino, y hay evidencias de una relativa apertura de la sociedad mexicana a la idea. Entonces, ¿cómo explicar la negativa a conceder, o incluso simplemente discutir, la participación cívico-política de los migrantes residentes en México?