THE TAJIN TOTONAC— PART 1 — KELLY AND PALERM 



45 



In the former case, Totonac chiefs, such as Simon 

 Tiburcio (cf. ftn. 90, p. 54), Manuel Perez, and 

 others, with native troops, distinguished them- 

 selves in the war against Imperialist forces (Olivo, 

 p. 388) . With respect to internal strife, the causes 

 are not mentioned specifically, but the chances are 

 very strong that they resulted from efforts to 

 reduce communal lands to private ownership. In 

 any case, it is clear that there were mutinies and 

 uprisings among the Totonac (Olivo, p. 391; Ala- 

 torre, pp. 25-26), of which the most important 

 was the series in Misantla, particularly that of 

 1865. 80 Then, the situation was so acute that the 

 republican authorities chose to surrender Misantla 

 and the neighboring zone to the Imperialists, under 

 truce, so that the latter might have the responsi- 

 bility of protecting the "white" inhabitants from 

 the Totonac. 



That local resistance to the application of the 

 land laws was stubborn and prolonged is clear 

 from a report issued by the Governor of Veracruz, 

 in 1871. 81 A decade later, another governor still 

 faced the same problem. There was even greater 

 pressure, a few years later, that communal lands 

 be divided (Veracruz, 1887, pp. 41^2), and it is 

 significant that the application of the land laws in 

 Papantla coincided with a new Indian uprising, 

 which affected not only Papantla, but also Mi- 

 santla and Jalacingo (Veracruz, 1887, pp. 35-41). 

 This agitation was under the leadership of a To- 

 tonac known as the medico santo, concerning 

 whom, as usual, there is virtually no information. 

 Once the rebellion was quashed, division of lands 

 proceeded, now complicated by new problems : the 

 laws of colonization {leyes de colonization) and 

 the exploitation of oil deposits. 



80 During -which ". . . asesinaron a cuanta gente de raz6n 

 pudieron sorprender . . . y destruyeron y se robaron todo el 

 material de guerra" (Alatorre, p. 26). 



81 "Ha estado luchando el Gobierno del Estado por realizar la 

 divisi6n de terrenos de la comunidad de indlgenas . . . Sin em- 

 bargo, muy poco se ha conseguido . . . En varios pueblos se ha 

 verificado la divisidn de dichos terrenos ; pero en comparaci6n de 

 los que afin quedan por dividir es realmente muy poco e in- 

 slgnificante lo que se ha hecho . . . se estableci6 una pena 

 demasiado severa para estimular a los pueblos al cumpliniiento 

 de la ley, y a pesar de esta precisi6n nada se ha avanzado" 

 (Veracruz, 1871, p. 50). 



The same report adds (p. 52) : "Es verdad que no serfa remoto 

 que llegare el caso en que deba usarse la fuerza y en que tambien 

 se derramare sangre . . ." 



Years later, the "reparto de los terrenos que pertenecieron a las 

 extinguidas comunidades, solo en cuatro o seis pueblos se ha 

 cuinplido lo prcscrito por la ley de la materia . . ." (Veracruz, 

 1888, pp. 39-40). 



LAWS OE COLONIZATION 



Sparse population, combined with an abun- 

 dance of land in the new republic had motivated 

 the general law of colonization of 1826, under 

 which it was hoped, through an offer of free lands, 

 to attract numerous immigrants and, at the same 

 time, to interest Mexican citizens in increasing 

 agricultural production. To these ends, the Na- 

 tional Government left each State free to legis- 

 late (Zavala 2 : 137) , in accordance with local con- 

 ditions. 



Attempts at colonization did not begin to pro- 

 duce marked results until the last quarter of the 

 nineteenth century. In 1875, the governor au- 

 thorized the formation of commissions to survey 

 public lands. They were paid in land, each com- 

 mission being allowed to delimit a maximum of 

 2,500 hectares, to a third of which it had claim 

 for its services. 



The laws of colonization and the activities of 

 the commissions were fatal to the remnants of 

 native communal — and even private — lands. 82 All 

 communal lands which had not been divided, and 

 all private lands not legally registered — in short, 

 the great majority of native holdings in Totona- 

 capan — were considered public property, to be 

 measured by a survey commission, which was to 

 reserve a third of the land for itself. 



The grabbing of Indian lands reached unprece- 

 dented proportions. Between 1881 and 1889, 

 32,240,373 hectares were surveyed by only 29 com- 

 panies or individuals; these received as recom- 

 pense, 13 million hectares, and acquired, by 

 purchase, 15 million more (Mendieta y Nunez, pp. 

 75-76). Accordingly, latifundismo — a heritage 

 of colonial times, accentuated by the War of Inde- 

 pendence and the Reform laws — grew vigorously 

 at the expense of Indian groups. 



To date, no study has been made of the applica- 

 tion of the surveys nor of the outcome in Toto- 

 nacapan. Nevertheless, the elder residents of 

 Tajin recall the survey clearly and the bloodshed 

 which it provoked (ftn. 88, p. 54) . It seems likely 

 that conditions in the Papantla zone may be taken 

 as representative of what must have happened, to 



82 According to the law of 1863, public lands include ". . . los 

 terrenos de la Republica que no hayan sido destinados a un uso 

 publico por la autoridad facultada para ello por la ley ni cedidos 

 por la mlsma a tftulo oucroso o lucrativo a individuo o corporaclOn 

 autorizada para adquirirlos." 



