[News] Land Tenure and Resistance in New Mexico
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Sun Sep 23 18:05:15 EDT 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/dunbar09222007.html
September 22 / 23, 2007
From the Pueblo Indians to Mexican Villagers
Land Tenure and Resistance in New Mexico
By ROXANNE DUNBAR-ORTIZ
Land tenure is primarily a legal concept, a mode
of holding and occupying land.1 This study is a
socioeconomic interpretation of the history of
New Mexico focusing on land-tenure patterns and
changes. Legal aspects, insofar as they
influenced or changed socioeconomic relations,
have also been considered. As an interpretative
historical analysis of land tenure in New Mexico,
the study has several goals. The interpretation
challenges one historical view of the Indigenous
peoples of New Mexico; a view expressed, for
instance, by the eminent historian Howard Lamar:
In the picturesque mountain villages a simple
folk culture and subsistence economy stubbornly
persisted in the face of the great drive toward
Americanization. Nearby, in their unique storied
apartment communities, those grand masters of
cultural isolation, the Pueblo Indians, exercised
their own arts of living as if the white man did
not exist at all. The Penitentes still thrived;
the moradas and fiestas went on in Chimayo, Taos,
and Arroyo Hondo; the priest remained a political
as well as spiritual leader in Spanish-American
lives. In the brown adobe villages, whether set
amidst the azured hills or straggling along the
muddy Río Grande, time still moves imperceptibly.
Without surrendering her traditions, nonetheless,
Spanish-American New Mexico had come to
accept--in the fifty-four years since American
occupation--certain institutions and to identify
herself with the national image. While a distinct
people and a charmingly different region
remained, the conquest begun so cockily by Kearny
in 1846 now began to have a deeper meaning, for
an invisible frontier of misunderstanding had at last begun to disappear.2
Contrary to Lamar's conclusions, a study of
historical land-tenure development reveals that
the Mexican villagers and the Pueblo Indians are
historically dynamic peoples, not static, as they
have often been characterized. As property owners
holding land collectively and as irrigation
farmers, they created social institutions that
developed their leadership and self-government
capabilities. With Mexican independence, a
growing political awareness and drive for
democratic institutions and equality within the
Mexican nation produced increasingly assertive
political involvement by the Mexican and Pueblo
Indian agricultural producers in the national
political process. They resisted U.S. conquest
and assimilation, which accounts for their
survival as peoples today. Dispossessed of much
of their land base, or of real control of it in
the case of the Indians, the Indigenous peoples
of New Mexico did not accept capitalist
institutions that contradicted their fundamental
democratic social and economic institutions.
Through land-tenure history, a different
perception of the Pueblo Indians emerges.
Although the Pueblos were profoundly affected by
Spanish conquest and colonization, it was
capitalist intrusion that threatened their
survival as a people. The particular mode of U.S.
colonization, or expansion of its capitalist
system, required the taking of Indian lands,
which were flooded with European and
Anglo-American settlers. From that base, states
and institutions were formed. The Land Ordinance
of 1785 propagated a national land system and was
the basis for its implementation. The Northwest
Ordinance of 1787, albeit guaranteeing Indian
occupancy and title, set forth a plan for
colonization establishing an evolutionary
procedure for the creation of states in the order
of military occupation, territorial status, and
finally statehood. Statehood would be achieved
when the count of settlers outnumbered the
Indigenous population, which in most cases
required forced removal of the Indigenous inhabitants.
The United States created a unique land system
among colonial powers. In this system, land
became the most important exchange commodity for
the primitive accumulation of capital and
building of the national treasury. In order to
understand the apparently irrational policy of
the U.S. government toward the Indians, the
centrality of land sales in building the economic
base of the U.S. capitalist system must be the frame of reference.
In New Mexico, the capitalist mode of production
and development of land as a commodity came with
U.S. conquest. Land had not been a commodity in
the Spanish colonial system. In New Mexico, trade
was active and vital, but it remained a
circulation of transportable commodities, and
little money circulated. The establishment of
community land grants determined the basic
land-tenure development of the region. Land
tenure based on
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0806138335/counterpunchmaga>
[]
cooperation characterized the poor communities of
New Mexico, while individualism and competition
for material gain characterized the capitalist mode in the United States.
Certain elements must exist, and did exist in New
Mexico, to lay the groundwork for the
introduction of capitalist production.3 The
interim and necessary transition element is the
presence of mercantile capital. During a period
of early accumulation of capital, or of
mercantile capitalism, competition is active
among the contending mercantile interests, ending
in the ruin of many small capitalists, including
the subsistent farmer who has been transformed
into a petty capitalist, producing exchange value
to survive in the money economy.4 The
money/credit system emerged in New Mexico through
the already existing partido system of
sheep-raising, similar to agricultural
sharecropping. With competition, a money economy,
and credit, the elemental factors for the
development of capitalist production and
accumulation of wealth were present.
Centralization or capitalization resulted by
means of the distribution of capitals already
existing or from an alteration in the
quantitative grouping of varying parts of
capital. Capital became concentrated in single
hands and in corporations as it was withdrawn
from many individual hands.5 In the process of
dispossession of the agricultural producers, a
surplus labor force, a "labor army," emerged in
the form of all the previous owners of the means
of production and a resulting pauperism in the excess of that army.6
In capitalist agriculture evidenced in New
Mexico, the increased productiveness set in
motion by capital was accompanied by destruction
of the laborers' individual vitality, freedom,
and independence. The dispersion of the
agricultural producers and the resulting social
dislocation broke down their power of resistance.
Capitalist agriculture exploits not only human
resources but also natural resources, which are
submitted to unplanned exploitation for profits.7
Primitive accumulation of capital, or mercantile
capitalism, coupled with colonial domination
played the role of divorcing the producer from
the means of production in New Mexico. The
expropriation of the agricultural producers from
the land was required for capitalist development.
The history of land tenure in New Mexico provides
a case study of the processes of colonialism and
the development of capitalism by looking at (1)
the processes of ancient land tenure and
economics based on communalism; (2) the
expression of early modern monarchical
imperialism with Spanish conquest; (3) the
development of a precapitalist self-subsistent
village economy and land tenure; (4) the entrance
of mercantile capitalism, gradually asserting
economic control over the agricultural producers
who had been transformed by capital into petty
capitalists; (5) the domination by foreign
capitalists, who began the process of
expropriating the agricultural producers and came
to monopolize land and resources; and (6) the
entrance of industrial capital, backed by the
national government, completing the process of
capitalization of land and the transformation of
the agricultural producers into wage earners.
Beyond the goals of dispelling stereotypes of
Mexican and Pueblo Indian people in New Mexico
and providing a case study in capitalist
development in a colonized area, the fundamental
goal of this work is to shed light on the land
question in New Mexico today. Two distinct
economic attitudes toward land use and land
tenure continue. The central issue is concerned
with the particular type of landholding that was
practiced by the precolonial Pueblo Indian
communities and colonially created in the
settlements under the Spanish regime. Mexican
village and Pueblo Indian land use is
distinguished by communal property ownership and
use, in contrast to capitalist private ownership,
and is further characterized by the predominance
of use value production in the former as opposed
to production for market exchange in the latter.
Though both Pueblo Indian and Mexican village
land use was subsistent prior to the entrance of
capital, precolonial Pueblo land tenure differed
qualitatively. Land was vested in the Pueblo as a
whole and distributed to the members of the
community with a system of equitable distribution
of produce. This land-tenure system was altered
and influenced by Spanish customs and colonial
institutions; the Pueblos in turn profoundly
influenced the Spanish village patterns in New
Mexico. Mexican land-tenure patterns in New
Mexico, then, were derived from a mixture of
Iberian village customs and Mexican Indigenous
customs and Spanish colonial policies and
practices and were most fundamentally influenced
by the Indigenous Pueblos. The land-tenure
customs of the northern frontier villages were a
synthesis of cultural influences controlled
institutionally by Spanish colonial regulations
and policies and by the realities of the frontier.
The means by which the subsistent land-tenure
system of New Mexico was destroyed under
capitalist control was through the introduction
of mercantile capitalism, followed by monopoly
capital supported by the U.S. government. In the
process, the agricultural producers were
effectively stripped of their means of production
and transformed from the owners of the means of
production to a laboring class--a surplus, cheap
labor force, dependent on capital for their
existence. Loss of land and the introduction of a
money economy and money taxes dispossessed the
agricultural producers. Though the Pueblo Indian
communities retained possession of narrowed land
bases under U.S. trust, they too were forced into
wage labor for subsistence in a money economy.
Much of their land was made unproductive by the diversion of water.
The development of capitalism in the region has
roots in earlier times, of course. Trade was an
important part of the New Mexico economy. In
precolonial times, trade was barter or a
circulation of commodities. Even when the trade
network became extensive with the rise of
Mesoamerican commercial expansion, it was a
precapitalist form of commerce, lacking
centralization, monetary exchange, credit,
specialization, mass labor, and the creation of
surplus value associated with capitalism. Spanish
colonial commerce was capitalist oriented but
precapitalist on the Spanish-American frontier,
since commerce was centered in the mercantile
cities of Spain and developed in the context of a
decaying political economy. In New Mexico, trade
remained precapitalist throughout the Spanish colonial period.
The Spanish colonial land-tenure policy of
merced, or land grants, perpetuated and
strengthened subsistent patterns of land tenure
and production. An important aspect of the
community land grant was the inclusion of common
pasture lands and common rights for using the
land. As in the countryside of England before the
development of industrial capitalism and
enclosure, the common lands were essential to
subsistent agriculture in New Mexico. An
authority on the English commons has written:
"Without these common rights, and the right of
common pasturage especially, the peasant farming
economy would have been wrecked."8
The U.S. government supported and sustained a
capitalist political economy with centralization,
organized markets, monetary exchange,
specialization, and organized labor (slave and
free), which created profits for individual
capitalists and developing corporations in the
nineteenth century. The prelude to this mode of
modern capital first entered New Mexico with the
mercantile capitalism of the Santa Fe trade
during the Mexican period. Mercantile capital
tended to transform the subsistent agricultural
producers into petty capitalists--that is,
producing for the capitalist market.9 Mercantile
capital introduced production for exchange,
centralization of markets, and credit into the
New Mexico economy. With U.S. conquest, the
entrance of land speculators introduced
capitalization of land. Sheep and land became the
primary exchange commodities available to the
farmers who were forced to compete on the
capitalist market. Indebtedness brought land
sales. Money taxes were imposed. U.S. government
policy determined the expropriation of the common
pasture land from the Mexican land grantees,
removing their basis of subsistence. This phase
of land tenure developed in the late nineteenth
century. The period was marked by oligarchic
political institutions and uncontrolled
exploitation of land, resources, and labor by
outside investors. The conditions thus generated
were comparable to those created by exploits of
capitalists, backed by their home governments, in
other colonized areas of the world during the same period.
Mercantile capitalism and the entrance of
colonial speculators played the role of divorcing
the agricultural producer from the means of
production in New Mexico. The expropriation of
the agricultural producers from the land was the
necessary basis for twentieth-century capitalist
development of land tenure in New Mexico.
In New Mexico, post<n>World War II issues of land
ownership; land use; control of mineral
resources, taxation, timber, and water; and the
controversial production of uranium and atomic
energy have stimulated a need for a historical
perception of land tenure in the area.
The geography of the region is itself a part of
the problem. Northern New Mexico is a mountainous
region, lying at the tip of the southern Rocky
Mountain range. Three major river basins with
eleven principal tributaries originate in the
area. The Río Grande, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers
flow from the region to Oklahoma and Texas/Mexico
and are directly affected by northern New
Mexico's natural phenomena as well as by the land
use of the area.10 Lowering of the water level at
the source, either through lack of precipitation
or human use, can adversely affect distant areas.
Therefore, the region is of strategic economic importance nationally.
Northern New Mexico is the region most densely
settled by the Pueblo Indians and then colonized
by the Spanish and, finally, by the United
States. The region runs vertically along the Río
Grande and fans out along the tributaries between
Socorro, below Albuquerque, to the Colorado line,
a three-hundred-mile stretch. The irrigable land
base is nearly a half million acres; the mesa
land, suited for year-round grazing, totals over
four million acres; and the mountain lands,
summer grazing areas, occupy over eight million
acres.ll The area south of Santa Fe is commonly
called the Río Abajo, or the downstream region,
and the area upstream, north of Santa Fe, is
called the Río Arriba. The two areas are
physically different and have engendered variant
land-use patterns and social relations. The Río
Abajo receives less precipitation both in
rainfall and snow coverage and has been used for
grazing more than for agriculture since Spanish
colonization. The Río Arriba area was used in
precolonial times for intensive hydraulic
agriculture, and in colonial times livestock
production, which required transhumant grazing patterns, was added.12
The entire area is one of arid and semiarid
climatic conditions "in which nature survives
only by effecting a series of delicate balances,
conditioned by temperature, altitudes, and
moisture. It is a land full of risks and
hazards."13 Hydrology is necessary for
agricultural production in the area. The
irrigation water supply of the valley comes from
the river and its tributaries rather than from
underground supplies. The necessity for
irrigation, with resulting social interactions
arising from conflicts and cooperation inherent
in the operation of the system, has contributed
substantially to the formation of the social
structures of the people of the region.
Though the Pueblos had been in the Río Grande
area approximately three centuries when the
Spanish invaded, they were part of a larger
socioeconomic network that had been using
irrigation for agriculture in the arid southwest
of the north American continent for twenty-three
centuries. Hydraulic agriculture produced a
particular set of social relations that was
expressed in Pueblo ceremonies and social
institutions. Never an isolated cultural entity,
Pueblo communities had long been involved in
trade with communities from the Pacific Ocean to
the Mississippi River and to the valley of
Mexico. At the time the colonialists arrived in
the late sixteenth century, the Pueblo subsistent
economy was closely related to trade and social
interaction with the bison-hunting peoples who
surrounded them. The ninety-three Pueblo villages
were politically autonomous but similar in social
structures, economies, ceremonies, and historical
development. They were linked by their mutual
dependency for their livelihood on the Río Grande and its tributaries.
The first colonial period of land tenure in New
Mexico was characterized by conquest and
imposition of Spanish colonial institutions. The
first long-term contact between the Spanish and
the Pueblo Indians was the two-year stay of
Coronado's army in the Río Abajo in the 1540s.
The conquistadores previewed the
seventeenth-century Spanish colonialism with
their forced appropriation of Pueblo produce, women, and labor.
The colonization of New Mexico in 1598 was
accomplished with a few hundred men and their
families and servants. The conquistadores were
Iberians born in Mexico; the servants were
mulatos descended from African slaves and
mestizos as well as Nahuatl-speaking Mexicans.
The colonizers were soldiers and friars. The
mission of colonization was aimed at the dual
goal of enhancing and enriching the Spanish state
and church as well as satisfying the personal
ambitions of the colonizers. The
seventeenth-century colony was parasitic
economically, drawing its livelihood from Pueblo
labor and captive Indian slaves. Spanish colonial
institutions were applied, and the
soldier-encomendero became lord over his assigned
Pueblo vassals, while the friars struggled for
control of Pueblo souls, supplies, and labor. A
power play, competition over Pueblo labor and
time, developed, splitting the colonists into
antagonistic factions. Spanish governors came and
went. Each acquired whatever wealth he could eke
out of the hundreds of captives working in
sweatshops and through sharp trading practices
with Indian traders as well as slave traffic. The
situation was not unusual in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries of Spanish colonial
experience in America, but it was aggravated in
New Mexico by the lack of mineral wealth available for extraction.
Settlers established estancias, which may have
been similar to those of the interior of Mexico,
about which more is known. They settled along the
river, encroaching on Pueblo lands. The Pueblo
revolt brought the colony to a quick end in 1680.
Some years, at least twenty, of organization
produced a unified offensive on the part of all
but a few southern Pueblos and included the Hopis
and Zunis to the west as well as Apache, Navajo,
and Ute allies. Many low-caste people--mulatos,
mestizos, and Indian servants--joined the revolt.
The settlers were driven into exile to El Paso.
Recolonization took thirteen years to accomplish.
The results of the eighty-year colonial rule were
chaos and damage to Pueblo agriculture and
society. A shrinkage of the Pueblo domain in
actual number of villages and population
resulted. Some Pueblo villages were abandoned and
never reoccupied. Many Pueblos went to live with
the Apaches and the Navajos in the mountains and on the plains.
The type of land tenure developed by the
colonists during the first period of colonial
rule cannot be documented because all records
were destroyed in the revolt and none have been
found in colonial archives that would indicate
the land-tenure patterns of the colonists.
Colonial laws and institutions provided for
integrity of Indigenous villages and land tenure,
and although these were apparently honored in a
legalistic manner, they were breached in practice.
Spanish recolonization was debated as to its
rationale and possibility. Spanish authorities,
alarmed by French expansion to Spain's northern
and eastern frontiers in North America,
determined that the northern frontier should be
maintained for the defense of the wealthy mines
of the interior. In order to maintain a colony it
was necessary to quiet Indian resistance to their presence.
The eight hundred colonists recruited for the
recolonization were a collection of soldiers,
friars, Spanish born in Mexico from the central
valley, settlers from Zacatecas, and many of the
families who had been expelled from the earlier
colony. None joined the colonization venture with
a view of gaining wealth because the lack of
affluence in the Río Grande area was well known.
Settlers who were prepared to farm, raise
livestock, and support themselves, then,
reestablished the colony. A number of the
original families from the previous colony and a
few from the new group came to be the political
and social elite of the society that developed.
They built their haciendas principally in the Río
Abajo area. The local political authorities, the
alcaldes mayores, were invariably drawn from the few influential families.
During the entire remainder of Spanish rule, the
principal concern of the colonists was
surrounding Indian resistance to their presence.
Military expeditions to punish Indian communities
for alleged raids and attacks on Spanish
settlements as well as expeditions with little
pretext except to acquire booty and captives were
frequent. Pueblo Indian and other Indian soldiers
were impressed into the colonial military and
composed the majority of its forces.
A large population of Indians, along with
mestizos and mulatos, who had been separated from
their communities lived in the barrio of Santa Fe
called Analco. Colonial officials conceived a
policy of settling these people, generally
referred to as genízaros, on the frontier of the
colony, granting them land in return for their
building of fortified villages and serving in the
frontier militia. By the end of the eighteenth
century, these settlements dotted the northern
frontier of the colony. The settlers subsisted by
agriculture, trade, raising flocks, and
acquisition of war booty. Colonial officials
pressured the settlers to build their homes
around plazas, forming fortified villages, which
also provided them protection against attack, a
policy counter to the settlers' tendencies to
establish small ranchos near their fields or flocks.
The community land grants to genízaros and other
needy settlers and the concentrated village
settlement pattern not only expanded the land
base of the colonial regime and held the frontier
against Indian pressure but also produced a
particular pattern of land tenure and
socioeconomic relations. The lowly and landless
became independent farmers, albeit generally very
poor, and settled in communities sharing common
pasture land and water. The villagers developed
social relations based, economically, on
irrigation agriculture, sheep-raising, and trade
with neighboring Indian communities. The
settlements, largely in the Río Arriba area,
produced a distinctive land-tenure pattern in the
north that contrasted with the more dominant
hacienda settlement pattern of the Río Abajo.
Pueblo Indian population declined in the
eighteenth century, partially due to epidemics
but also to outward migration. The Pueblo
practice of expulsion of dissidents or dissidents
choosing to leave the community was a factor in
the retention of Pueblo social integrity and
strength. Those who left their communities could
not build a new Pueblo as they had done in the
past; rather, they fell into the genízaro caste.
Despite repeated encroachments on Pueblo lands,
Pueblo landholdings and land tenure were not
radically altered in the eighteenth century.
Pueblos developed a dualistic structure of
Spanish institutional forms and continued to
practice their own ceremonies secretly. Through
exterior institutions, aided by their Spanish
colonial advocates, they employed their right to
petition, to fight encroachments, nearly always
with some success. Community grant lands rarely
came close to any Pueblos, so offenders were
influential Spanish hacendados who had private land grants.
The use of the community land grant to settle the
frontier transformed landless Indians and
mestizos from a dependent class into a
landholding class, producing an amalgamation of
Pueblo and Spanish village land-tenure and social patterns.
During the period in which New Mexico was a part
of the Republic of Mexico, 1821-1848, the
villages of New Mexico began to interact with
their new national government. The birth of the
Republic of Mexico created a new world for the
Mexican villagers and Pueblo Indians of New
Mexico, removing the Spanish colonial regime and
its repressive church and state controls. All
inhabitants of Mexico became citizens and the legal caste system was abolished.
Mexican villagers and Pueblo Indians continued to
go to the plains to trade and hunt buffalo,
becoming increasingly dependent upon the produce
from those activities. With the opening of the
Santa Fe trade, their small-scale trade was met
with the competition of mercantile capital from
the United States, which gradually drew them into
its fold. Similarly, the raising of flocks became
an increasingly contractual pursuit, the partido
("sharecropping"), being used more than
independent ownership with increased indebtedness to the owners of the flocks.
Foreign traders and entrepreneurs entered the
area while the U.S. government was formulating
policies designed to carve out the northern
Mexican territory for acquisition. The elite of
the colonial province began to emerge during the
Mexican national period as an entrepreneurial
class, developing close economic and social ties
with the foreign merchants. Merchants, artisans,
and trappers entered New Mexico immediately with
the opening of the Santa Fe trade, soon
controlling that trade, altering New Mexico's
economic relationship with Chihuahua to a
relationship with St. Louis, Missouri. Taos,
which was the port of entry from 1821 to 1846,
became the headquarters of affluent traders and
trappers, who intermarried with the elite Mexican
families of New Mexico and formed a small but
powerful clique known as the "American party."
The foreigners were able to acquire land grants
by forming partnerships with Mexican citizens,
permitting members of the Taos clique to acquire vast landholdings.
Class conflict in New Mexico became very sharp in
1837 when the conservative faction gained control
of the national government in Mexico and
attempted to impose taxation, an outsider as
governor, and a departmental system of government
in New Mexico, in effect stripping the area of
local authority. Members of the governing elite
of New Mexico were incensed but did not act.
However, Pueblo Indian and Mexican villagers of
the Tewa Basin in the north revolted, formed a
new government, executed the unpopular governor
and his staff, and ruled from Santa Fe for nearly
six months. They presented a coherent program for
a reorganized local government and demanded that
the national government withdraw its proposed
plan. They never suggested secession from the
Republic of Mexico. The revolt, which was crushed
by the New Mexico elite, revealed a growing
political consciousness on the part of the
villagers. Its suppression revealed the class
consciousness of the elite, who had no intention
of allowing popular rule in New Mexico. These
same patriotic forces resisted U.S. military
occupation in 1846. All but two villages in the
north declared for resistance. The U.S. military
governor and members of the American party were
killed, land-grant papers were destroyed, and
foreigners throughout the north were attacked.
The New Mexico elite joined with the U.S.
military and volunteers from the American party to crush the resistance.
In 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the
ceded northern Mexico to the United States. U.S.
military rule was replaced by territorial rule
under the U.S. colonial policy spelled out in the
Northwest Ordinance. Under treaty obligation to
protect the property and rights of Mexican
citizens in the conquered territory, the United
States established a procedure that caused
delayed settlement of land titles. During half a
century of political oligarchy, capitalist
entrepreneurs entered the area and obtained
titles to land. Lawyers posing as representatives
of the villagers took land as payment of fees. In
general, land became a substitute for money for
the subsistent agricultural producers in the
growing money economy. Their only other marketable item was sheep.
When Congress did act to settle land titles,
strict legalistic guidelines were drawn and
equitable rights of the villagers were excluded.
Legal procedures were lengthy and expensive. The
most important policy that emerged was the denial
of community ownership of the common pasture
lands. These lands were declared public domain
and thrown onto the market for homesteading,
thereby dooming the future of the Mexican
villages so dependent on pasture lands for their flocks.
Once practically merged politically under the
Mexican state and an integral part of its
revolutionary development, the Pueblo Indians and
Mexican villagers became separated politically by
U.S. colonialism and capitalist development. The
crushing of Navajo and Apache resistance by the
U.S. military ended the centuries of dynamic
interaction that the resistance of those fiercely
independent peoples provided. The necessity for
the Pueblos to win U.S. trust protection
segregated them from general developments until
recent years. Since the 1960s, the revival of the
land and water rights issues by all the colonized
peoples of New Mexico has brought renewed contacts and both unity and conflict.
The international Indigenous movement has grown
dramatically over the last few decades and now
affects Indigenous strategies of resistance in
New Mexico. It has given rise to questions of
identity and Indigenousness in the land struggles
in New Mexico, generating conflict between the
aspirations of Pueblo Indians and the claims of
the descendants of the original Hispanic population.
U.S. conquest of former Spanish colonies in the
second half of the nineteenth century is not a
subject that has produced extensive historical
analysis. The military seizure and colonization
of half of the territory of the Republic of
Mexico has elicited very little interest and is
often glossed over as part of the "natural
expansion" of U.S. capitalism. However, the
Indigenous peoples of the region have not
forgotten that they were conquered and that they
have human and legal rights despite the fact that
they are now minorities in the area seized.
This essay is adapted from Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's
new book
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0806138335/counterpunchmaga>Roots
of Resistance.
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz is a longtime activist,
university professor, and writer. In addition to
numerous scholarly books and articles she has
published two historical memoirs,
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859841627/counterpunchmaga>Red
Dirt: Growing Up Okie (Verso, 1997), and
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0872863905/counterpunchmaga>Outlaw
Woman: A Memoir of the War Years, 19601975 (City
Lights, 2002). She can be reached at:
<mailto:rdunbaro at pacbell.net>rdunbaro at pacbell.net
Notes
1. Two approaches may be taken to land tenure
history: legal and socioeconomic. A legal history
of land tenure would trace the controlling laws
of property and their changes through time. Under
a common law system such as the Anglo-American
one, the history of pertinent court cases would
be analyzed to assess the emergence of a new or
varied property concept or doctrine legislation
that created means of land distribution would be
considered. Under a civil law code such as that
the Spanish and Spanish-American ones, royal
proclamations and orders and acts of cortes and
congresses would be studied to establish the
legal concepts of property-holding and distribution at a given time.
The other approach, a socioeconomic history of
land tenure, assumes that any change in property
ownership or property rights produces profound
social and economic consequences. As an authority
on land tenure has stated: "The patterns of land
distribution and ownership reflect the actual
power structure; and the saying 'whoever owns the
land wields the power' holds true for entire
historical epochs." Erich Jacoby, Man and Land
(London: Andre Deutch, 1971), p. 19.
2. Howard Lamar, The Far Southwest, 1846-1912
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966),
p. 201; Herbert O. Brayer, William Blackmore
(Denver: Bradford-Robinson Publishers, 1949);
Victor Westphall, The Public Domain in New
Mexico, 1854<n>91 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1965).
3. In order to locate the roots of capitalist
development of land tenure in northern New
Mexico, the distinction between property for use
and property for exchange as a commodity must be
sought. Here, the historical materialist analysis
of Karl Marx is pertinent. Land in noncapitalist
societies serves use values rather than having
exchange value. Land, objects, and resources in
general are not subject to exchange value by
their inherent nature. A commodity is nothing
more than "an object outside of us, a thing that
by its properties satisfies human wants of some
sort." Only the utility of a commodity creates
its use value. In capitalist production, unlike
subsistence, use values are also the material of
exchange value. In directly satisfying needs with
the use of his or her own labor, a person creates
use values but not exchange values. In order to
produce a commodity for exchange, social use
value or use values for others must be produced.
Further, the product must be transferred by means of an exchange.
In an agricultural subsistence economy, articles
produced within a social unit--the village,
family, or clan--are not commodities for
exchange. For these objects to acquire exchange
value, their producers must be in relations with
others such that one does not part with the
object or appropriate that of another except by
means of an act of mutual consent--a contract,
formal or informal--in which each party
recognizes in the other the rights of private
owners. The commodity then acquires exchange value.
The situation is different in societies based on
property in common. A precapitalist mode of
exchange occurs not within the social unit but on
the outer fringes of the community, at its
contact point with other communities or
individuals from other communities. Repetition of
exchange creates a need for more exchange, and
some production comes to be geared toward
producing commodities specifically for exchange.
From that point in time, there is a distinction
between the utility of an object for consumption
and its utility for exchange. In ancient times
and in early historic times, nomadic peoples were
the first to develop the exchange form, their
worldly goods consisting of moveable objects that
were directly alienable. Their continual contact
with foreign communities intheir movements
engendered trade relations between the nomadic and sedentary peoples.
Money, coined from precious metals, early became
a convenient means of exchange and was itself a
commodity that served as a measure of value.
Having no inherent value, money is pure exchange
value. However, it is a commodity and has the
potential of becoming the private property of an
individual, creating accumulation of wealth.
Credit money grows out of the function of money
as a means of payment, becoming the dominant form
of exchange as capital advances, with coin
moneythereafter relegated to retail trade. As
money and credit become the dominant forms of
exchange, rents and taxes are transformed from
payment in kind to money payment. The
dispossession of the agriculture producers of
their lands historically has been due not only to
increases in taxes and rents but also to the
introduction of money payment, money being a
commodity rare to the subsistent producer.
Capital is not created by money and credit alone.
Only through the increase over the original value
when a commodity is bought and when it is resold,
when surplus value or profit is created, is the conversion to capital made.
The distinctiveness of the capitalist is that he
or she does not aim to acquire use values from
commodities or simply profit from a single
transaction. Rather, the capitalist seeks to
create surplus value toward the end of
accumulation of wealth. The key to assuring
surplus value lies in the acquisition of another
unique commodity labor power. Under the
capitalist mode, instead of being in the position
to sell commodities within which his or her labor
is a part, the laborer must instead offer for
sale his labor power as a commodity.
Capital can emerge only when the capitalist has
attained control of the means of production,
gathering together the property once held by many
hands and concentrating it in his or her own
hands. Once dispossessed of his or her means of
production, the agricultural producer meets in
the marketplace with the capitalist to sell his
or her labor. The laborer no longer directly
produces his or her actual necessities; he or she
produces labor power, which he or she sells to
the capitalist in order in turn to purchase necessities.
Surplus labor time is then generated by the use
of labor, creating surplus value or profits.
Surplus labor did not originate with capital.
Whenever a part of society has possessed a
monopoly on the means of production, the laborer,
whether slave or free, has had to add to the
working time necessary for his or her own
maintenance in order to produce for the owner of
the means of production. This was the
relationship of the landlord and peasant in
precapitalist Europe. However, where use value
rather than exchange value predominated, surplus
labor was limited by a particular set of needs,
and there was not the thrust for surplus labor
that exists under the capitalist mode. See Karl
Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy,
vol. 1, The Process of Capitalist Production (New
York: International Publishers, 1973), pp. 4-264.
For a case study of the development of capitalism
in indigenous territories, see Lawrence David
Weiss, The Development of Capitalism in the
Navajo Nation (Minneapolis, Minn.: MEP Publications, 1984).
4. William I. Parish, The Charles Ilfeld Company:
A Study of the Rise and Decline of Mercantile
Capitalism in New Mexico (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1961), pp. 3, 35-37, 109.
5. Marx, Capital, pp. 626-27.
6. Ibid., p. 644.
7. Ibid., p. 506; Allan G. Harper, Andrew
Cordova, and Kalervo Oberg, Man and Resources in
the Middle Rio Grande Valley (Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press, 1943), pp. 28-55.
8. W. G. Hoskins and L. Dudley Stamp, The Common
Lands of England and Wales (London: Collins,
1963), pp. 8-9. See also Peter Linebaugh, Magna
Cart and the Commons: The Lost Charters and the
Struggle for Liberty and Subsistence for All
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007).
9. Parish, The Charles Ilfeld Company, pp. 3,
35-37, 109. Parish discusses the period of
mercantile capital in northern New Mexico in
relation to the partido sheep contract between merchants and villagers.
10. Clark S. Knowlton, "One Approach to the
Economic and Social Problems of Northern New
Mexico," New Mexico Business 17 (September 1964): 3.
11. Harper, Cordova, and Oberg, Man and Resources
in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, p. 10. Today,
the federal government claims 33 percent of the
land base of the state of New Mexico, or 25.7
million acres. The state of New Mexico claims 12
percent, or 9.3 million acres, of the land base
as state-owned lands; private owners (which
includes land grantees) hold 46.25 percent, or 38
million acres; and Navajos, Apaches, and Pueblo
Indians together hold 8.75 percent, or 7 million
acres, of the total land base of the state of New
Mexico. State of New Mexico, Economic Report
(Santa Fe: State of New Mexico, 1977).
12. William Dusenberry, Mexican Mesta:
Administration of Ranching in Colonial Mexico
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963), p. 3.
13. Harper, Cordova, and Oberg, Man and Resources
in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, p.10.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20070923/ba7bbc1b/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list