Society for Latin American Studies

Manuel Gamio and Official Indigenismo in Mexico

Author(s): David A. Brading
Source: Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1988), pp. 75-89
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for Latin American Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3338441
Accessed: 19/01/2009 21:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for Latin American Studies and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Bulletin of Latin American Research.

http://www.jstor.org
Bull.Latin.Am.Res.,Vol.7, No. 1,pp.75-89, 1988. 0261-3050/88$3.00+ .00
PrintedinGreatBritain. PergamonPressplc
SocietyforLatinAmerican
Studies

ManuelGamioandOfficialIndigenismoin
Mexico
DAVID A. BRADING
Centreof LatinAmericanStudies,Universityof Cambridge

In the realmof publicideology,the MexicanRevolutionwas precededand

accompaniedby anupsurgein nationalism.Intellectualsas diverseas Andres
Molina Enriquez and Jose Vasconcelos denounced the sterile aping of
European doctrines which had characterizedthe LiberalReformaof the
1850s, in favourof measureswhich were based on colonial precedent.In
fixing upon mestizajeas the historicalmainspringof Mexicannationality,
both men echoed Justo Sierra, high priest of Liberal patriotismin the
Porfirianera, who had declaredthat 'the mestizofamily... has constituted
the dynamic element in our history'.' That both Social Darwinismand
RomanticIdealismwere invoked to justifythese claimsdemonstrateshow
powerfulwas the nationalistimpulsein Mexico duringthe first decades of
this century.It fell to ManuelGamio(1883-1960) to applythe principlesof
Boasian anthropologyto further the same cause, albeit, in this case, by
insisting on the enduringcontributionof Indian civilisationto Mexico's
development.As the title of his book, ForjandoPatria (1916), clearly
attested,Gamiowelcomedthe Revolutionfor its destructionof obstaclesto
the creationof 'thefuturenationality. . the futureMexicanpatria'.Although
he did not participatein the revolutionarystruggle, he praised Pablo
Gonzilez, VenustianoCarranza'slacklustregeneral,as 'anintuitivenational-
ist', and later characterisedCarranzahimselfas 'a man of manyfaults,but
withala true progressiveand a man of the people', clear evidence that he
favouredthe victoryof the constitutionalistcoalitionoverthe popularforces
led by EmilianoZapataandPanchoVilla.2In 1935 he assertedthathis public
goal had alwaysbeen to promote'a true,integralnationalism',thusavoiding
the contemporaryextremesof fascismand communism.3
To assessthe significanceof Gamio'scontributionto the Mexicanpolitical
and culturaltradition,it should be recalled that althoughFray Servando
Teresade Mierand CarlosMariade Bustamante,the chiefideologuesof the
1810 Insurgency,had invokedthe grandeurof Anihuac as the chiefgloryof
their Creole patriaand defined the Mexicanpeople as a nationwhich had
struggledfor three centuriesto regainits freedom,a thesis enshrinedin the
Act of Independenceof 1821, by contrastmost early nineteenth-century
Mexican Liberals dismissed the Aztecs as mere barbariansand viewed
contemporaryIndiansas a hindranceto their country'smodernisation.4In
adoptingthis approach,theycould cite Alexandervon Humboldtwho,in his
study of Indian monuments and codices, expounded the neo-classical
76 BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH
doctrinethataestheticachievementandpoliticalfreedominvariablyco-exist,
a unionsupremelyrealisedin ancientGreece,but all too absentamongthe
Aztecs whomhe describedas 'a warlike,mountainouspeople,strong,butof
an exaggerateduglinessif judgedaccordingto the principlesof European
beauty,degradedby despotism,accustomedto the ceremoniesof a bloody
cult,and littledisposedto elevatethemselvesthroughthe cultivationof the
finearts'.5In thelightof theseremarks,it comesas no surpriseto findIgnacio
Ramirez,Ministerof Justicein the firstcabinetof BenitoJuarezand a great
admirerof Humboldt,condemningthe Aztec realmas an abjectdespotism,
dominatedby superstitionand fear, the survivingremnantsof its art and
literaturenotableonly for theirbarbarictaste.Whatlessonscouldbe learnt
fromtextswhichadmittedthat'thefirstMexicanemperoratehis wifeduring
theirweddingnightandbeforethe sun rose the next daychangedher into a
goddess'?6
The Liberalsdiscernedtwo greatobstaclesto the emergenceof a secular,
democraticsociety in Mexico: the wealth and influenceof the Catholic
Churchand the enduring,isolatedbackwardnessof the Indianpeasantry.
TheReformathussoughtto quittheChurchof itspropertyandto deprivethe
clergyof all publicauthority.So, too, Indianvillageswere strippedof their
juridicalpersonalityand theircommunallandsdistributedon an individual
basis.The resultwasto leavemanycommunitiesvirtuallydefencelessagainst
the expansionof neighbouringhaciendas.Even whereIndianscontinuedin
possessionof land,thereoccurreda processof concentrationof ownership.
Buttheradicalideologueswhoframedthesemeasureswereremarkably slow
to perceivethe consequencesof theirpolicy.Dogmaticallyconvincedthat
economicprogresscouldonlyderivefromthefreeplayof individualinterest
in anunrestrictedmarket,IgnacioRamirezobservedthattheIndianswereso
immersed in the dull rhythm of rural life that they more resembled
industriousantsthanthe freecitizensof a liberalrepublic.Indeed,by reason
of their isolationand multiplicityof languages,most Indianscould not be
definedas Mexicans,since 'theseraces still conservetheirown nationality,
protectedby familyandlanguage'.7 Onlywiththe publicationof Los grandes
problemas nacionales (1909) did a liberalintellectualoffer a persuasive
defenceof the principleof communalownershipof landby Indianvillages.
Even so, AndresMolinaEnriquezdisplayedscantinterestin nativehistory
and excluded Indians from the Mexican nation, which he defined as
essentiallymestizo.8
The achievementof Manuel Gamio was to reinstateAnahuac as the
gloriousfoundationof Mexicanhistoryandculture,thusreversinga century
of Liberal scorn. Equallyimportant,he rejectedneo-classicalcanons of
aestheticjudgementand demandeda revaluationof native art-forms.As
muchas MolinaEnriquez,he calledforlanddistributionon a collectivebasis
and advocatedthe revivalof villagehandicraftindustry.In the last resort,
however,the officialindigenismopromotedby Gamiosoughtto incorporate
Indiancommunitiesinto the nationalsocietyof modernMexico.A secular
liberal,Gamiocondemnedboth the CatholicChurchandthe folk Catholic-
ismwhichgovernedthemindsandlifeof MexicanIndians,offeringby wayof
analternativethediffusionof scientificknowledgeandaestheticachievement.
MANUEL GAMIOAND OFFICIALINDIGENISMO 77

Indigenismowas thus a meansto an end ratherthanan enduringmission:if

incorporationwas its aim, then essentiallyit soughtto destroy ratherthan
fortifythe peasantcultureof nativecommunities.Modernisingnationalism
of the brandadvocatedby Gamiocertainlyfoundconsolationin pastglories
but its innervisionwas based on the liberalresolveto transforma backward
countryinto a modem nationable to defenditselffromforeignhegemony.

The intellectualfoundationof Gamio'spubliccareerlay in his professional

skill as an archaeologist.In 1909-1910 he studiedat ColumbiaUniversity
with FranzBoas, a vitalinfluence,since not merelyhad Boas spear-headed
a renovationof American anthropology,he also played a leading role in
the establishmentof the InternationalSchoolof ArchaeologyandEthnology
in Mexico City.9It was underBoas'directionthatin 1912 Gamioconducted
excavationsat SanMiguelAmantlain Azcapotzalcowhichfor the firsttime
in the Americanhemisphereemployedthe methodof stratigraphicanalysis,
a method which enabled archaeologiststo trace the sequence of cultures
throughsuccessivelydeeperandolderlevelsof depositedshards.In recogni-
tion of the qualityof his research-the resultswere madepublicin the 1913
InternationalCongressof Americanists-GamiosucceededBoas as Director
of the School of Archaeology and also served in the department of
Archaeological Monuments, 1912-1915, rising to become its Director
General,an appointmentwhichcoincidedwith the worstflurriesof revolu-
tionaryconflict.10It was in 1917, largelythanksto the patronageof Pastor
Rouaix,then Ministerof Agriculture,that Gamiowas madeDirectorof the
newly-establishedDepartmentof Anthropology,a post he occupied until
1924 and during which he undertook the work for which he is still
remembered.
Gamio'smain achievementwas the reconstructionof the archaeological
site of Teotihuacan.Already, in the last years of the Porfiriato,Leopoldo
Batreshad cleaned the two greatpyramidsof their centuries-longcover of
natural vegetation, a clumsy, unprofessionaljob which robbed these
monumentsof theirsymmetryandleftthe surroundingsitefilledwithrubble.
With the assistanceof a team of archaeologistsand some 300 workmen,
Gamioconducteda thoroughsurveyof the ceremonialcentre,uncoveredits
main features,and, most important,cleansed the Ciudadelaof vegetation,
revealingthat it had formed a temple dedicatedto Quetzalcoatl,with the
greatserpentheadsthatprotrudedfromthepyramidattestingto the cult.The
entire site was then carefullyrestored so as to prevent deterioration.In
additionto this renovationof ancientmonuments,Gamioundertookseveral
depth excavations, employing stratigraphicanalysis to determine the
sequence of human settlementat Teotihuacan.Carefulplans and photo-
graphsof all workin progresswere maintained.Equallyimportant,in 1922
Gamio edited a handsometwo volume survey,undertakenby his research
team, entitled ThePopulationof the Valleyof Teotihuaca'n.12 It was left to
IgnacioMarquina to set out in print,accompaniedby lavishillustrations,the
firstcompletedescriptionof the monumentsandoverallsite of Teotihuacan,
withcarefulanalysisof the ceramicsequenceandthe survivingfriezes.Other
78 BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH
membersof the group providedaccountsof the mythologyand cultural
developmentsof Indiancivilisation.As Gamioconfessedin his introduction,
the precisedatingof the monumentswas still uncertainand the relationof
Teotihuacanto Tula, the capital of the Toltec realm, still a matterfor
speculation.It is significantthatGamiodid not essayanyroundedsynthesis
or descriptionof Indiancivilisation,contentto let thearchaeological findings
speakfor themselves.Despite this omission,the professionalqualityof the
enterprisewasabundantlyevidentandColumbiaUniversityawardedGamio
a doctoratefor his work,at thattimea rarehonourfor a Mexican,andclear
proofof his internationalstandingas a scholar.
The reconstructionof Teotihuacanat once convertedthe site into the
greatest public monumentin Mexico and effectivelyre-instatedIndian
civilisationas thefoundationof Mexicanhistory.It wasno longerpossiblefor
radicalsto dismiss the native past as a story of barbarism,still less for
Americananthropologists to ranktheAztecsas superiorIroquois.Thesheer
imposing scale of the ceremonial centrein itselfevokedcomparisonwiththe
pyramidsof Egypt and thus restored the old Creole insistence on the
grandeursof nativeempireas the enduringgloryof Mexico.It was a thesis
Gamiopopularisedin a touristguideto Teotihuacain whichhe publishedat
this time, clearlydesignedto attractvisitors,both Mexicanand foreign,to
inspectthe resultsof his project.'3In all this,Gamiothusinauguratedwhat
wasto becomea distinctivelyMexicanindustry,thereconstruction of ancient
monuments-a craftindustryfinancedby the Mexicanstateandjustifiedby
the joint aim of recuperatingnationalgloryand attractingmasstourism.In
Mexico archaeologyhas alwaysbeen governedas much by politicaland
practicalrationaleas by academiccriteria.
Not contentmerelyto studythe past, Gamiosoughtboth to analyseand
reformthe present.The findingsof archaeologywereto be paralleledby the
applied researchof anthropology.What linked the two ventureswas the
thesis,whichGamiofirstpresentedin ForjandoPatria,thatthe bulkof the
Mexicanpopulation,if definedin broadculturaltermsratherthanby strict
linguisticcriteria,wereIndians.To demonstratethisthesis,Gamioorganised
an ethnographicsurveyof the districtof Teotihuacan,runningconcurrently
with the excavationsat the site, employingan entireteam of assistantsto
completetheproject.Theresultswhichwerepublishedin the secondvolume
of the Valleyof Teotihuacandealtwitha multiplicityof themes,rangingfrom
agriculture, landtenureanddietto religiouspractice,folk-loreandmedicine,
withcolonialhistoryaddedto bridgethegapbetweenthenativepastandthe
contemporaryscene. Once more, Gamioleft the actualpresentationto his
team,seekingonly to summarisetheirfindingsso as to afforda basisfor his
policyrecommendations. Governingthe entireprojectwas Gamio'sconvic-
tionthatcontemporaryIndiansconservedin essential,albeitin eroded,form
the cultureof theirancestors.Both in its materialbase andin its intellectual
presuppositions, nativecivilisationexhibiteda resilient,intransigent
identity,
its essentialconfigurationmuchthe samein the twentiethcenturyas it had
been at the timeof the Spanishconquest.'3To demonstratethisproposition,
Gamiofirstshowedthatalthoughonly 5 per cent of Teotihuacan'sinhabi-
tants spoke nahuatl, crude physical measurementsrevealed that some
MANUEL GAMIO AND OFFICIAL INDIGENISMO 79

60 per cent of the population were Indians, with the rest mainly mestizo.
Moreover, a carefully framed scheme of cultural characteristics equally
demonstrated the existence of two separate groups, the one broadly native,
the other predominantly mestizo-white.14
In his approach to the native population, Gamio drew on the work
of Franz Boas who had consistently argued against the explanatory value
of the concept of race, hitherto dominant in American social science,
seeking to replace it by the concept of culture. According to Boas there
were no inferior or superior races, since all human groups were endowed
with much the same range of talents and qualities. If this was the case, then
there was little point in arranging races and nations in any general,
evolutionary scheme, an approach much favoured in Social Darwinist
circles where the Teutonic white nations were generally thought to head
mankind's universal progress. All this was grist to Gamio's ideological mill,
since it enabled him to escape from the genetic determinism that then
afflicted social thinking in Mexico. All peoples were equal in the eyes, if not
of God, certainly of the anthropologist. It was for this reason that he always
referred to Indian or native 'civilisation' and introduced his fellow country-
men to the Boasian concept of culture, defining it as 'the natural and
intellectual manifestations' of any human group. Moreover, if contemporary
Indians appeared sunk in rural idiocy, then their backwardness should be
attributed to their poor diet, their lack of education, their material poverty,
and their isolation from the stimulus of national life. There was nothing
original in these assertions, since Justo Sierra in a well-known essay had
equally fixed upon diet and education as the twin determinants of native
retardation.15
With these principles to hand, Gamio defended the aesthetic achievements
of Indian civilisation, launching a frontal assault on the canons of neo-
classical taste which had governed academic art in Mexico until the eve of the
Revolution. Was there not, he queried, an impressive similarity between
guiding principles of cubism and Aztec art? In any case, the most cursory
inspection demonstrated that the literature and art of pre-Columbian
civilisation was as beautiful and as original as anything produced in Mexico in
subsequent centuries. At the same time, he warned against any ill-informed
application of European criteria to the appreciation of Indian artefacts. As
yet, the grounds for an aesthetic judgement of such objects did not exist. Most
observers simply singled out as beautiful those images which possessed a
fortuitous resemblance to European form. If the elaborately carved image of
Coatlicue was dismissed as grotesquely ugly, the warrior'shead known as the
Eagle Knight was widely admired. Not content merely to defend the essential
relativity of aesthetic taste, Gamio argued that Mexican artists should seek
inspiration in these native sources, the more especially since in this fashion
they would produce works more accessible and appealing to the contempor-
ary native population. It was with this didactic view in mind that Gamio
proposed the establishment of a Department of Fine Arts, funded by the
State, to encourage the emergence of national art in Mexico, asserting that
such art was 'one of the great bases of nationalism'.16 By way of encourage-
ment, he commissioned Francisco Goytia, a native artist, to paint landscapes,
80 BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH
churches and folk-scenes in Teotihuacain,canvases done in somewhat
impressionisticstyle,whichwerereproducedin the publishedsurvey.
In accordancewiththisrevaluationof nativecivilisationandits artforms,
Gamioalso initiateda campaignto reviveMexicanartisanindustry,singling
out populartextiles,ceramics,lacquer,metal-workandporcelain.Although
mostof thesecraftsoriginatedin the colonialperiod,theyalso,so he argued,
preserveda native traditionand embodied a harmoniousintegrationof
hispanicand Indianformsand techniques.Unfortunately,productionin all
these lines had sufferedconsiderablyduringthe nineteenthcenturyowing
firstto foreignimportsand then to the establishmentof modem industryin
Mexicoitself.Yet whereasmechanisedfactoryproductscould neverfind a
marketabroad,in contrastnativecraftsmet withimmediatesuccess,always
provided they enjoyed governmentencouragementin modernisingtheir
techniquesand in marketingtheir wares. 'Nationalindustry',as Gamio
termed these goods, provided a much-neededruralemploymentand in
particularpromotedthe economicdevelopmentof nativecommunities.At
TeotihuacanGamioactivelyencouragedthe revivalof artisancraftsand,if
not allsurvived,theimpressivearrayof stoneobjectswhichgreetthemodem
touristto that zone offersa tributeto his prescience.17
Once again,Gamio
thusinitiateda policywhichwas to be implementedby subsequentMexican
governmentsand which to this day continues to characteriseofficial
indigenismo.
In no sense did Gamioconfinehimselfto the realmof culture,since he
stronglyinsistedon the necessityof land reform.In a clearecho of Molina
Enriquezhe commentedthatwhereasthe colonialLaws of the Indieshad
protected native land tenure, by contrast the Reforma had effectively
strippedthe Indianpeasantryof its land. 'The constitutionof 1857', he
declared,'is of foreigncharacterin origin,formandbasis'.The radicalshad
broughtin legislationanda formof governmentthatwassuitablefor a mere
quarterof the population,a systemthatwasexoticandinappropriate for the
nativemasses.In ForjandoPatriahe called for measuresto reconcilethe
Yaquisof Sonoraand the Mayasof QuintanaRoo, so to incorporatethese
dissident groups within the nation. More important,he admitted that
althoughelementsof banditryhad enteredZapatismo,therealso existeda
'legitimateZapatismoor Indianism'whichsimplysoughtto reversethe laws
of the Reforma,endowingnativevillageswithcollectivelyownedland.Nor
was the movementconfinedto Morelos, since Gamio estimatedthat the
Zapatistasrepresentedthe claimsof abouta thirdof the population.In this
sharpattackon the Reforma,Gamioreiteratedthe dictum,originallycoined
by Montesquieu,thatlawsshouldbe 'derivedfromthenatureandnecessities
of the population',ratherthan merelyapply abstractprinciplesimported
fromabroad.18
In the greatsurveyof Teotihuacan,GamiocommissionedLucioMendieta
y Nuiiez to tracethe historyof land tenureand the currentdistributionof
landin the district.'9The publishedtextmadeit clearthatalthoughSpanish
land-grantsbegan in the sixteenthcenturyand that the Spanishshare of
arableland steadilyincreasedas the nativepopulationdeclined,neverthe-
less, mostvillagersenjoyedsome accessto commonlandsuntilthe Reforma
MANUEL GAMIOAND OFFICIALINDIGENISMO 81

when the bulk of the populationwas reducedto the conditionsof landless

labourers.The districthad not benefited from Independenceand indeed
thereweregroundsfor supposingthatits populationwasnot muchgreaterin
1919 than it had been in 1876 or even in 1810. The lack of land, when
combinedwith heavyinfantmortality,periodicfamines,and out-migration,
all servedto explainthis secularstagnation.As it was,some seven haciendas
owned 9523 hectaresor 90 per cent of the availablearableland, with the
remainderheldby 416 smallproprietors.Muchof the haciendaterritorywas
devoted to maguey plantationswhich produced pulque for Mexico City.
Only four haciendas had any irrigationand only one enterpriseowned a
tractor.All wheatwas cultivatedby the largeestates,but maize production
was dividedin equalamountsbetweenthe haciendasand villagers.Despite
the preponderanceof the haciendas,in 1900 theyonly supportedsome 371
residentpeons, the remainderof the populationlivingscatteredin over 30
smallvillagesand towns,most of whichwere builtin dispersedfashionwith
manyhouses endowedwithsubstantialgardens.AlthoughMendietaoffered
figureswhichsuggestthatvillagelandholdingsweresomewhatlargerthanhis
estimateof 977 hectares,nevertheless,there is little reason to disputehis
conclusionthatmostfamilieslackedsufficientlandto supportthemselves,so
that the largest class in the communitywere day-labourers,migratingin
search of seasonal employmentor hiring themselvesto the local estates.
Nevertheless,there also existed in each villagea familyor more of Indians
who possessed land and who acted as the effective leaders of their com-
munities.Despite the bleak picturehe drew, Mendietay Nufiez cautioned
againstany indiscriminatehaste in land redistribution,since if the Capital
was to be fed the countrysiderequiredefficientsmall propertiesbased on
irrigationand mechanisation.It was thus necessary both to increase the
endowmentof landavailableto the villagesandto prepareconditionsfor the
modernisationof agriculture.
Here were conclusionsthat Gamio made his own. At the same time, he
displayed considerable caution in specifying the precise mechanism of
agrarianreform and indeed chose to defend his recommendationsby an
attackon Bolshevism.These werethe years,it shouldbe remembered,of the
Obregonpresidencyand of the 'redscare'in the United States.For all that,
Gamio'sargumentsweresingularlylackingin dialecticalingenuity.Inthefirst
place, he admittedthat in Mexico City 'socialismhas made as great and
positive conquests as in whatever other country in the world', always
exceptingRussia.In recent years workershad improvedtheir conditionby
meansof collectiveactionand the organisationof unions,thusincorporating
themselves into modem civilisation.By contrast in Teotihuacainsocialist
ideas were unknownand inappropriate.Unfortunately,therewere 'pseudo-
Bolshevik leaders'in the Capitalwho had proposed implantingsoviets in
Mexico, men who soughtto ignore'theunescapablelaws of evolution',and
impose foreign,modem forms of organisationon communitiesthat existed
still at varyingdegrees of the neolithic,pre-hispanicor medievallevels of
culture. In any case, he added, Washingtonwould never accept such a
development,but would intervene and thus prejudicenational indepen-
dence.By wayof an alternative,Gamionoted thatin the pre-hispanicperiod
82 BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH
villageshadbeengovernedby 'a communistorganisationof work',whichhe
describedas 'a practicaland happy applicationof the theoriesof Marx'.
Much the same 'communistsystemof property'had continuedduringthe
Colonyand had only been abolishedduringthe Reforma.Therewere thus
ample historicalprecedentsfor implementingthe 1917 Constitutionand
endowingnativecommunitieswithland,based,so Gamioadvocatedon 'the
system of co-operativism(mutualismo) or rural communism,but not
Bolshevism'.20If we recallthatin the sameyearMolinaEnriquezdefended
Article27 of the Constitutionas basedhistoricallyon the regalianrightsof
the SpanishCrownandphilosophicallyon the positivistprinciplesof Comte,
thenthe ideologicalclumsinessof Gamio'svocabularywillbecomeclear.21
III
To emphasiseGamio'srevaluationof pre-Columbian art;hisencouragement
of artisanindustry;his insistenceon the enduringinfluenceof nativecivilisa-
tion;his advocacyof landrestitutionfor Indianvillages;his sharpcritiqueof
classicalliberalismand contemporarycommunismas alien ideologies;his
concernwith social realitiesas againstabstractdoctrinesand his evident
aspirationto create a united, strengthenednation;-all this is to portray
ManuelGamioas a typicalromanticnationalist,as a manwhose heartand
mindalmostinstinctivelyrespondedto the themesand idealswhichin the
eighteenthcenturyhad drivenGermanpatriotsto rejectthe Enlightenment.
The very 'historicalparticularism',of whichFranzBoas has been accused,
preparedthegroundfor therejectionof socialDarwinismandtheimperialist
penetrationit served.Certainly,in the openingpagesof ForjandoPatria,he
strucka decidedlyromanticnotewhenhe appealedto the 'revolutionaries' of
Mexico to forge a new patria from hispanic iron and native bronze.
Moreover,the startingpoint of his manifestowas the admissionthatwhen
judged by the standardsof Japan,Germanyand France,Mexico did not
constitutea true nation.As yet, it lacked the four definingfeaturesof a
commonlanguage,a commoncharacter,a homogeneousraceanda common
history.By reason of their many languages,ruralisolation,poverty and
illiteracy,the Indiancommunitiesconstituteda seriesof separatecountries,
pequeias patrias,whose inhabitantsdid not participatein the 'nationallife'
or exercisetheirrightsas citizensof the republic.The grandaim,so Gamio
declared,must be to create 'a powerfulpatria and a coherent,defined
nationality',based on 'racial approximation,cultural fusion, linguistic
unification,andeconomicequilibrium'.22
No matterhowromanticandnationalisticweretheimpulsesthatanimated
Gamio'spubliccareer,in the last resorthe was fartoo deeplyinfluencedby
his liberal,positivistformationto yield to the ideologicalthrustof these
emotions.From the start,he conceivedof himselfas a social scientistwho
soughtto deployhis professionalexpertisein serviceof the Mexicanpeople
and the Mexicanstate. The implicationsof this latent positivismcan be
clearlyobservedwhen after rejectingany 'integral,ascendingprogress'in
favour of 'periodic,temporaryprogress'in humanculture,he exempted
science from this general rule, noting that its universalmomentumwas
sustainedby an internationalcaste of savants.In 1935, he developedthis
MANUEL GAMIOAND OFFICIALINDIGENISMO 83

qualificationinto a thorough-goingantithesiswhen he wrote: 'In human

evolutionwe observethatscientificallygovernedactivitieshave followedan
ascending curve in their development ...' whereas '... in activities or
intellectualmanifestationsbereftof the scientificcharacterto whichwe have
alluded,such as art,religion,ethics and politics,activitieswhichare merely
conventional,emotive and sentimental,their irregularevolutioncannot be
describedgraphicallyby an ascendingcurve but only by one which alter-
nativelydescends and ascends'.23In effect, all local nationalconcernswere
but countervailingeddies, doomed to dissolution,when confrontedby the
universaltide of scientificprogress.
The degree to which Gamio's positivism controverted his romantic
impulseis best demonstratedby his failureto encounterany valuein Indian
cultureotherthanits artisticproduction.The all-importantfactthatcontem-
poraryIndians in Mexico preservedin their daily lives the essential con-
figurationof pre-hispaniccivilisationwas not for Gamioa causefor national
exaltation,offeringan enduringbase on whichthe nationcouldbe refounded
or constitutinga sourceof socialvalueshithertoerodedby foreigninfluence,
but rather embodied an obstacle to mestizaje, and signified economic
backwardnessand culturalstagnation.Even in his treatmentof classical
Teotihuacan,Gamio entertainedtraditionalliberal reservations.True, he
asserted that despite the practice of human sacrifice native religion had
exerciseda benignmoralinfluence,alwaysprovided'theevolutionarystage
then attained'was takeninto account.24Certainly,the densityof population
far exceeded the numberssupportedin subsequentcenturies.In an essay
writtenfor American consumption,he arguedthat native civilisationwas
'spontaneous,that is, it grewfrom progressive,convergentmentaldevelop-
ment,from geographicand biologicalinfluence.For this reasontheirracial
characteristicswere normal,their culturalmanifestationslogical and their
social structurenaturalandproperlyorganised'.However,all theseobserva-
tions wereundercutby his descriptionof the pyramidsat Teotihuacanwhere
he commentedthatthe immensemassesof earthwhichsustainedthe temples
'signified... the offeringof toil, sorrow,blood and tearsmadeby the people
to the gods, subjugatedby the theocraciesthat exploitedtheirfanaticism!'25
IgnacioRamirezcould not haveput the mattermore starkly.
Moreover,if the society of Teotihuacanexhibitedevolutionarypromise,
thereafterit was down-hillall the wayfor the nativepeoplesof Mexico.After
the SpanishConquestthe Indians'barelypreservedtheirrace'andweresoon
reducedto 'a mechanical,darkand painfulexistence,brokenby occasional
surges of rebellion and hatred for their oppressors'. All that Spain
bequeathed to Mexico after independence was an enserfed population
dominatedby a 'hybrid,defectiveculture'.26 This process of seculardecline
was best illustratedby the discovery that the descendantsof the mestizo
historianof the early seventeenthcentury,Fernandode Alva Ixtlilxochitl,
stilllived in Teotihuacan,comprisinga familyof pettyproprietors,Indianin
appearanceand culture,who livedin blissfulignorancethattheycouldcount
among their ancestors both Nezahualc6yotl, the philosopher-kingof
Texcoco andIxtlilx6chitl,the only nativehistorianin Mexicoto rivalthe Inca
Garcilasode la Vega,27but Gamiodid not dwellon the charmandinterestof
84 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

this story. Instead, he pronounced that 'there is in Mexico two great social
groupings living side by side in the same territory: the one, numerically
inferior, presents an advanced and efficient civilisation, and the other,
numerically the larger, displays a backward civilisation'. It was a contrast
drawn between the natives and the mestizo -whites, between what in colonial
parlance were called Indios and gente de razon.28 By then entering its fifth
century of conflict, so Gamio declared, the struggle between the cultures
remained as strong and oppressive as ever. The degree to which he denied
that native civilisation possessed any enduring value or offered any lesson to
contemporary Mexico was amply demonstrated in the following remarks.29
The extension and intensity that folk-loric life exhibits in the great
majority of the population, eloquently demonstrates the cultural back-
wardness in which that population vegetates. This archaic life, which
moves from artifice to illusion and superstition, is curious, attractiveand
original.But in all senses it would be preferable for the population to be
incorporated into contemporary civilisation of advanced, modern ideas,
which, if stripped of fantasy and traditionalclothing, would contribute in
a positive manner to the conquest of the material and intellectual well-
being to which all humanity ceaselessly aspires.
In short, Gamio probed native culture in the spirit of a pathologist analysing
the physical decay of the patient. The great survey of Teotihuacainwas thus
designed not as a quest for Mexico's native roots and foundation, but rather
as an exploration of the lower depths of human deprivation. Statistics and
facts were always forthcoming to support such an approach. Popular diet was
barely sufficient and lacked the tonic qualities necessary for the display of
prolonged physical energy, the average calorie consumption more close to
that of the Egyptians than of the Europeans, a measurement that led to the
conclusion that 'the natives that now inhabit the Valley of Teotihuacfan
belong to a race which is physiologically decadent'.30
Moreover, the grand object here was to remove the obstacles to mestizaje,
that centuries-long process which would eventually create a homogeneous
Mexican nation. In pursuit of this goal, Gamio was adamant that Indians
should be encouraged to learn Spanish, since otherwise they would remain
trapped within their own villages, dwelling as 'foreigners in their own
country'. Although he did not actively discourage the use of native tongues,
he clearly hoped that they would slowly wither away, since after commenting
on their decline he observed that 'this decadence... is beneficial to national
unification'.31At the same time, his emphasis on cultural rather than genetic
definitions of the native population entailed some curious conclusions. For
he declared that men such as Juarez or Altamirano could not be considered
as natives, despite their genetic status, since they had become fully incorpo-
rated in modern culture. As late as the 1930s Gamio continued to draw a
distinction between the quarter of the population which enjoyed a moder
scientific culture, predominantly urban, and the majority which were still
dominated by anachronistic, folk-loric ideas and practices. By then he had
become enamoured of the soya-bean as the cutting edge of dietary improve-
ment and sought to introduce modern medicine to the rural population.
MANUEL GAMIOAND OFFICIALINDIGENISMO 85

Appointed Director of the Inter-AmericanIndigenistaInstitutein 1938, a

post he continuedto hold for manyyears,he stillclaimedthat'nativeculture
is the truebase of nationalityin almostall the countriesof America';insisted
on the 'brilliantfuture of artisan industry';characterisedauctothonous
culture as 'more natural,spontaneous and picturesque'than the foreign
civilisationof the cities;-yet definedthe aim of his Instituteas assisting'the
necessitiesof the groupsthatvegetatein the lowest stagesof evolution'.32
WhatrendersGamio'scase yet moreindicativeof the ideologicalsourceof
official indigenismoin Mexico is that beneaththe sternmask of the social
scientistthere lurkedan unregenerateanti-clericalliberal.Throughoutthe
great surveyon Teotihuacainthere was a fierce condemnationof the three
centuriesof Spanishrule as a period in which the native communitywas
virtuallyenserfed,the victimsof exploitationand mindlesscruelty.All the
emphasiswason the tragedyof theirdisplacementandoppression.However,
in his introduction,Gamio reserved his harshestcritiquefor the role of
Catholicism,assertingthat'theimpositionof this religionwas the chiefcause
or one of the most importantcauses ... of the pronouncedand continuing
decadenceof the nativepopulationboth in the colonial and contemporary
epochs'.33Despitethe effortsof conservativepropagandiststo depictthefirst
friars as the protectors of the Indians,the mendicantshad exploited the
nativesmercilessly,forcinggreatcontingentsto labouron the constructionof
the vast churchesand conventsthat soaredfar abovethe squalidhuts of the
peasantry.Men suchas Las CasasandSahaguin werea rarity,not the rule,an
assertionwhichpromptedGamio to query:'Whoknows how manyblood-
thirsty,exploitativefriarsshouldhavebeen hungat the gallows?'If by reason
of their observanceof 'the sombre rules of the misanthropeof Assisi', the
Franciscansbuilt less ostentatiousedifices than theirAugustiniancounter-
parts,nevertheless,the chroniclesof Motoliniaand Mendietawere essen-
tiallymisleading.For the mendicantsfailedto impartanytrueknowledgeof
the Christiangospel to the MexicanIndians,since all thatoccurredafterthe
conquestwas the substitutionof paganidols by Catholicimages.To this day
the nativespractised'a coarsepolytheism... a strangehybridof superstition
and idolatrousreligiousconcepts, very far from the principlesof Roman
Catholicism'.34
The bitteranimusagainstthe Churchdisplayedby Gamiowas eminently
characteristicof the constitutionalistcoalition which defeated the popular
alliance in the Revolution. Heirs of the Reforma, they condemned the
Churchas the chief obstacleto theirplansto builda modern,secularsociety
in Mexico. As the survey of Teotihuacanrevealed, the peasantrywere
eminentlyreligious,expendingtheir exiguous resourceson fiestas and on
churchadornment.Moreover,their devotion left them at the mercyof the
countryclergy,who generallydisplayedlittle concernfor the materialwell-
being of theirflocks, but ratherchargedhighfees for all theirservices,lived
with common-lawwives and generallyexercised a retrogressiveinfluence.
Detailedresearchon the ethnographyof Teotihuacain didnot alwaysconfirm
this harsh verdict.True, the enquiryfound that if 4826 persons exhibited
some rudimentaryacquaintancewith the chief tenets of the Christianfaith,
another 3419 persons could only be describedas paganCatholics.At the
86 BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH
sametimevirtuallyall Indiansemployedfolk-medicineandits practitioners
to curetheirailmentsand equallysubscribedto folk-beliefsaboutthe world
and its spiritswhichhad little to do withChurchdogmas.Yet the authorof
the survey also noted that the influence of the clergy, great as it was,
dependedon individualpriestsgainingthe sympathyof the natives,sinceat
leastone clerichadbeen virtuallyexpelledby irateparishioners.Moreover,
the surveyconcludedthat religionwas a necessityfor the Indians,since it
providedthe only ray of lightin the otherwise'animallife of these men'.35
Such was the force of these findingsthat Gamio did not recommendany
frontalassaulton the Church.Instead,he merelysuggestedthatthe govern-
ment should interveneto lower fees chargedfor religiousrites and seek
meansto encouragethe clergyto marry.So he also urgedthatthe absurdly-
dressed,oftensanguinaryimagesthatattractedpopularvenerationshouldbe
removedor, at the veryleast,improved,sincetheircruditycorruptednative
sensibility.More to the point, he recommendedthat 'otherreligiousfaiths
andotherclergy,suchas Protestantismandits pastors,shouldbe implanted
in the regionand thatregionalmasoniclodges and othercivic associations
shouldbe organised'.Inlateryears,Gamioexpressedthehopethattheinnate
aestheticqualitiesof the nativesshouldbe encouragedto the point where
artisticexpressionmightreplacereligiousdevotion.As always,he berated
religionas the chiefcauseof the natives'culturalstagnationandadvisedthe
Governmentto promote educationand science to combat its pernicious
influence.36The indigenismopreachedby Gamiothussoughtto extirpatethe
folk-Catholicismthat had emergedduringthe colonial period:Leviathan
wouldbrookno rivalsin its populardomain.
IV
In a Declarationof Social, Politicaland AestheticPrinciples,compiledby
David Alfaro Siqueirosin 1922, a groupof leadingMexicanpaintersand
sculptors,includingDiego Riveraand Jose ClementeOrozco, proclaimed
that'Thenobleworkof our race,downto its mostinsignificantspiritualand
physicalexpressions,is native(and essentiallyIndian)in origin.Withtheir
admirableand extraordinary talentto createbeauty,peculiarto themselves,
the artof the Mexicanpeople is the mostwholesomespiritualexpressionin
the worldand this traditionis our greatesttreasure'.In thispronouncement
we encountera messianiceuphoria,worthyof the visionarypatronageof
Jose Vasconcelos,in whichMexicanartistsassertedtheirvocationto create
formsof universalsignificance,albeitof nativeorigin.The tensionbetween
nativerootsanduniversal,not to say,futuristicambitioneventuallyled both
Siqueirosand Orozco to attackthe workof Rivera,condemninghis overly
narrownationalismas anunoriginalblendof archaeologicalrevivalism,folk-
loricnarrativeand Gauguinesqueprimitivism.By contrast,in his American
exile Siqueirosstroveto developnewtechniquesandemploynew materials,
consonantwith the machineage of the twentiethcentury.Moreover,he
rejectedhistoricistmodes as romanticand assertedthat revolutionaryart
had to be classic,publicand monumental,characterisedby an emphasison
basic,geometricforms,an emphasisalreadyto be foundin both the early
DavidandCezanne.So, too, Orozcodeploredthe contemporaryconcentra-
MANUEL GAMIOAND OFFICIALINDIGENISMO 87
tion on Indianorigins,commentingthat much of Mexico'svauntedfolk-art
derivedfrom 'thecreoles and mestizosof ruralareas'.Moreover,he argued
that nationalismin aestheticmattersmightwell benefitfolk-artof local and
transientinterest,but could onlyunderminegreatartwhichhadto followthe
universalstandardscommon to all countries.He added:'each race will be
able to make and will have to make,its intellectualand emotionalcontribu-
tion to thatuniversaltradition,butwill neverbe ableto imposeon it the local
and transitorymodalitiesof the minorarts'.37
In the ideology of Manuel Gamio, we can observe much the same
dichotomybetweenthe insistenceon the nativeroots of the Mexicanpeople
and the stem affirmationof the necessity of modernity.In art the tension
betweenthese contrastingimpulsesled to the creationof paintingswhichat
theirbest werebothnationalin contentandmoder in formandtechnique,a
combinationin partjustifiedby the experienceof the Revolutionandby the
revolutionaryambitionto createmodesof expressionwhichwerepublicand
didactic. The images of the past that the great muralistspresented were
derivedfromthe liberalnationalistideologypromotedby the Revolutionary
Government.So equally in the work of Gamio we encounter the same
ambitionto employ the most advancedtechniquesof the social sciences to
elucidatethe realitiesof nationalhistoryand the contemporaryconditionof
the nativepeoples of Mexico. In the field of archaeology,moder methods
were similarlyappliedto uncoverthe sequenceof past culturesand, more
important, to recuperate and renovate the great monuments of native
civilisation,incorporatingthem as the tangible,public demonstrationof
Mexico'snativeorigin.
In conclusion, it is surely significantthat the ethnographicsurvey of
Teotihuacanconductedby Gamiowasthe firstsystematicenquiryintonative
beliefsandreligiouspracticessincethe 1560s, whenBernardinode Sahaguin
completed his monumentalcompilation.There is a hauntingidentity of
purposein the two projects.For the Franciscanjustifiedhis accumulationof
so much data on paganreligionby comparinghis work to the researchof a
doctor into disease:he studiedpaganismso as best to devise the means to
extirpateit, fully persuadedthat before the Indianscould be incorporated
into the universalculture of the Catholic church,the very roots of their
religionhad to be uncoveredand destroyed.So Gamioassembleda teamof
assistants to investigate every aspect of 'Indian civilisation',so as to
encounterthe measureswhichwould enable the Mexicanstate to incorpo-
rate the native peoples into the national community,which in turn he
implicitlydefined as but one variantof the universalculture of Western
liberalcapitalism,firmlypersuadedthatmodernityrequiredthe destruction
of existingfolk-loricbeliefs and practicesand in particular,demandedthe
uprootingof the influenceof the CatholicChurch.In essence,the onlyitemof
valuethatGamioencounteredin his explorationof Indiancivilisationwas its
aesthetic artefacts,objects which could serve as a legitimate source of
nationalprideand hence worthyof displayin museumserectedto celebrate
Mexicanculturalachievements.Fromthe threecenturiesof Spanishoppres-
sion, he soughtto rescue only its architecture,artisticpatrimonyand folk-
crafts. In sum, Gamio dismissed the long cycle of human civilisationin
88 BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH
Mexicoas possessingfew, if any,lessons for the present:the past was dead
and,whereits influencelingered,ripefor extirpationleavingonlyitsmaterial
monumentsandartefactsfor contemporaryadmiration.
Despite Gamio's affirmationthat the native populationpreservedthe
cultureof Anmhuac, his ownevidencerevealedthatit wasthe colonialperiod
whichconstituteda livingpast, a culturewhichin manyimportantspheres
continuedto dominatethe peasantry.The very folk-craftshe sought to
promotederivedfrom that epoch. The formsof communalland-tenurehe
advocatedrepresentedlittle more thana returnto colonialpractice.More
important,the all-pervasivevitality of folk-Catholicismtestified to the
enduringinfluenceof those centuries.Therewereindeedtwo Mexicos.But
theconflictwasbetweena Catholicmajorityanda liberalminority,betweena
populacewhosetraditionsandinstitutionswererootedin the threecenturies
of Spanishdominionandthemodernisingprojectsof the revolutionary state.
It is not our purpose to question the wholly admirableconcern for the
materialwell-beingof the nativepopulationwhichinspiredGamio'spublic
career. But there is little doubt that his indigenismoderived from his
liberalismandwasanimatedby a modernisingnationalism,whichpromoted
theincorporationandassimilationof theIndiancommunitiesintotheurban,
hispanicpopulation.The ultimateand paradoxicalaim of official indige-
nismoin Mexicowasthusto liberatethe countryfromthe dead-weightof its
native past, or, to put the case more clearly,finallyto destroy the native
culturewhichhademergedduringthe colonialperiod.
NOTES
1. D. A. Brading(1984), Prophecyand Mythin MexicanHistory,pp. 63-80, Cambridge
Centre of Latin American Studies; Justo Sierra (1948), Obras, Vol.IX, p. 131
(14 Volumes)(Mexico).
2. Manuel Gamio (1960), ForjandoPatria, 2nd edition, pp. 169, 181 (Mexico);Jose
VasconcelosandManuelGamio(1926),AspectsofMexicanCivilization, p. 177 (Chicago).
Predictably,Vasconceloswroteabout'TheLatinAmericanBasis'andGamioabout'The
IndianBasis'of Mexicancivilisation.
3. ManuelGamio(1972), Arqueologiae Indigenismo,introduction andselectionbyEduardo
MatosMoctezuma,p. 175 (Mexico).Note thatthis selectionreprintspartsof Hacia un
Mexiconuevo(Mexico,1935).
4. D. A. Brading(1985), The Originsof MexicanNationalism,pp. 48-55, 73-74, 81-92,
CambridgeCentreof LatinAmericanStudies.
5. Alexandervon Humboldt(1974), Vistasde las cordillerasy monumentosde los pueblos
indigenasde America,translationandintroductionby JaimeLabastida,pp. 87, 95, 236-
237 (Mexico).
6. IgnacioRamirez(1966), Obras,Vol. I, pp. 221-222 (2 Volumes)(Mexico).
7. IgnacioRamirez(1966), ibid.,Vol. I, 190-191; Vol II, 183-192.
8. D. A. Brading(1984), Prophecyand Mythin MexicanHistory,pp. 64-71, Cambridge
Centreof LatinAmericanStudies.
9. On Gamio'scareersee JuanComas(1956), 'La vida y la obra de ManuelGamio',in
I. BernalandE. DivalosHurtado(eds),Estudiosantropologicospublicados enhomenajeal
doctorManuelGamio(Mexico);alsoGonzaloAguirreBeltran(1971),'Pr6logoinAlfonso
Caso',in La comunidadindigena,Sep-Setentas(Mexico).
10. See IgnacioBernal(1980), A Historyof MexicanArchaeology,pp. 160-169 (London);
GordonR. Willeyand JeremyA. Sabloff(1974), A Historyof AmericanArchaeology,
pp. 89-91 (SanFrancisco); see alsoDavidStraug,'ManuelGamio,laEscuelaInternacional
en lasAmericas',in M.Gamio,Arqueologia
y el origende lasexcavacionesestratigraficas y
indigenismo,pp. 207-233.
MANUEL GAMIOAND OFFICIALINDIGENISMO 89

11. ManuelGamio(ed.)(1972), Lapoblaci6ndel Vallede Teotihuacdn(2 Volumes)(Mexico);

facsimileedition, dividedinto 5 Volumes,introductionby EduardoMatos Moctezuma
(Mexico,1979).
12. On tourismsee M. Gamio,Teotihuacdn,Vol. I (i), pp. lxxvi-viii.
13. For thisthesissee M. Gamio,ForjandoPatria,p. 96; Teotihuacdn,Vol. I (i), p. xxix.
14. M. Gamio,Teotihuacdn,Vol. I (i), pp. xxvii-ix;Vol. II (iv),p. 165. Physicalmeasurements
yielded 5657 indigenas,2137 mestizosand 536 blancos;culturalassessmentsyielded
5544 personsof 'civilizaci6nindigena'and2866 of 'civilizaci6nmoderna'.
15. M. Gamio,ForjandoPatria,pp. 24, 95, 106;JustoSiera,Obras,Vol. IX,pp. 126-127. For
Boas see GeorgeW. Stocking,Jr., Race, Cultureand Evolution.Essaysin the Historyof
Anthropology(Chicago, 1968), pp. 161-234; and MarvinHarris(1969), The Rise of
AnthropologicalTheory,pp. 250-318 (London).
16. M. Gamio,ForjandoPatria,pp. 40-47, 55.
17. M. Gamio,ForjandoPatria,pp. 140-147; Teotihuacdn,Vol. I (ii),pp. xc-iii.
18. M. Gamio,ForjandoPatria,pp. 30,72,172-181.
19. M. Gamio, Teotihuacdn,Vol. I (ii), pp. 709-774; Vol.II (v), pp. 448-470. Note that
Mendietay Nuiez also provideda generalstudyof the agrarianproblemin Mexicoanda
review of currentlegislation,based largelyon the works of WistanoLuis Orozco and
Andr6sMolinaEnriquez,in Vol. II (v),pp. 477-572.
20. M. Gamio, Teotihuacdn,Vol. I (i), pp. lxxxi-v;p. xcvii.The pseudo-Bolshevikhere was
probablyVicenteLombardoToledanowhohadsuggesteddividingMexicointo a seriesof
Indian republics:see Ram6nE. Ruiz, 'The Strugglefor a National Culturein Rural
Education',in I. BernalandE. DavalosHurtado(eds),Estudiosantropol6gicos,p. 480.
21. D. A. Brading,ProphecyandMyth,pp. 71-72.
22. M. Gamio,ForjandoPatria,pp. 6-8, 12, 183;Aspectsof MexicanCivilization,p. 177.
23. M. Gamio,ForjandoPatria,p. 106;Arquelogiae Indigenismo,p. 164.
24. M. Gamio,Teotihuacdn,Vol.I (i),p. xliii.He fearedthataftersucha favourableassessment
'se nos tachede indianistasa outrance'.
25. M. Gamio,ibid.,Vol. I (i), p. lxiv;Aspectsof MexicanCivilization,pp. 105-106.
26. M. Gamio,Aspectsof MexicanCivilization,pp. 118, 169; Teotihuacdn,Vol. I (i), p. xix.
27. M. Gamio,Teotihuacdn,Vol. I (ii),pp. 546-548.
28. M. Gamio,ibid.,Vol. I (i), p. xxviii.
29. M. Gamio,ibid.,Vol. I (i), p. lii.
30. M. Gamio,ibid.,Vol. II (iv),p. 186.
31. See OnesimoRios Hernandez,'Gamioy la juventudnativa',in I. Bernaland E. Davalos
Hurtado (eds), Estudios antropol6gicos,pp. 49-50; M. Gamio, Aspects of Mexican
Civilization,p. 130.
32. Manual Gamio (1948), Consideracionessobre el problema indigena, pp. 2, 5, 8-9
(Mexico);M. Gamio,Arqueologiae Indigenismo,pp. 125,131-135,158-159,162.
33. M. Gamio,Teotihuacdn,Vol. I (i), p. xliii.
34. M. Gamio,ibid.,Vol.I (i),pp.xlvi-ix;M. Gamio,Aspectsof MexicanCivilization,pp. 110-
111.
35. M. Gamio,Teotihuacdn,Vol. I (i), pp. xxxii,xlii-lii;Vol. II (iv),pp. 226-229.
36. M. Gamio,ibid.,Vol. I (i), p. xcix;M. Gamio,Arqueologiae Indigenismo,pp. 166-169.
37. DavidAlfaroSiquieros(1975), ArtandRevolution,pp. 21-24,31,62,113-115 (London);
Jose ClementeOrozco (1974), The Artist in New York,pp. 89-90 (Austin).See also
JustinoFernindez(1972), EsteticadelArteMexicano,pp. 495-526 (Mexico).